[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Donations

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> +       property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
> +       §9.).  Such decisions are made by announcement on a 
> +       electronic mailing list designated by theProject Leader's 
> +       Delegate(s), which is accessible to all developers. 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest s/Project Leader's Delegate(s)/Project Leader or their
Delegate(s)/ throughout the document. [I'll ignore what look to be
strange spacing errors. ;-)]
>    9.1. Authority
> +    3. Debian Developers are not agents or employees of such
> +       organizations holding assets in trust for Debian, or of each
> +       other or of persons in authority in the Debian Project. A
> +       person acting as a Developer does so as an individual, on
> +       their own behalf.

I don't really understand this paragraph; are we attempting to say
that these organizations can't have Debian Developer's as agents or
employees? Or are we trying to say that the organization can't require
a Developer to influence the process as a function of their agenecy or
>    9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
> +   Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> +   donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a set

Consider s/for/to/

> +   of organizations designated by the Project leader (or a delegate)
> +   to be authorized to handle such things in name of the Debian
> +   project. Such authorization, or its withdrawal, and annual reports
> +   of activities by such organizations on behalf of Debian must be
> +   published by announcement on a publicly-readable electronic
> +   mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s); any
> +   Developer may post there. 

I'd also suggest requiring authorization of an organization to handle
money in the name of Debian be announced publicly before its
authorization, say two weeks or so. [This allows sufficient time for
§4.2.2 to place a decision on hold, and really shouldn't cause a
problem.] I don't support this for the amendment to add 4.2.6 above,
because I can forsee a decision to direct an organization to disburse
funds needing to occur quickly. [This would also allow the developers
to verify that the organization is in a position to undertake the
obligations necessary to handle Debian assests, such as you mention
the SPI doing below.]

>  Should we move the bit about SPI to an external no-foundation
>  document? I would be open to that, but it would be nice if I see
>  some indication other people agree with aj and me.

As far as the obligations that SPI has undertaken? It would probably
be just as well to link to the list of organizations that are
currently capable of handling assets for Debian and the list of
promises they have made in order to do so. [I think even deleting the
list of obligations of SPI and placing that elsewhere may be useful
because it's not particularly germane to the constitution.]

Don Armstrong

No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free
[...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: