On 14 Jun 2006, Don Armstrong said:
[Snipping away stuff that needs more thought to reply to]
>> Well, I am not sure. §220.127.116.11 means that such a decision by the DPL
>> can be immediately put on hold, well before any funds are
>> committed. I don't see how delaying decisions to authorize or
>> unauthorize organizations by two weeks really helps in the common
>> case; since just 10 developers can put a decision on hold.
> My argument is that it takes time to figure out whether one should
> object to the organization or not and build support for it... of
> course, a counter argument is that it takes time for people to
> notice that they can donate to the newly recognized
> organization. [My fear is that some newly founded organization is
> veted by some future Evil DPL, assets are transfered and dispersed
> wihtout allowing some lead time for people to examine the
Err, Would Evil DPL actually pay that much attention to the
constitution? And then, what is enough time? Even a
wolf-organization can be cloaked in sheep skin long enough to fool
most remote, or cursory, investigation. Balance that with
procedural road block that a mandatory delay throws in the flow of
Also, I think the fact that it would take a while for the
funds to start flowing, so Evil DPL would have to be in collusion
with the givers too for the monies flowing to amount to much.
> Is there actually a need to be able to authorize an organization
> without some lead time?
Perhaps the negotiations for becoming a trustee would take
place in private; with the announcement being made after a long,
private, vetting process?
I really don't think this is significant risk here, and anyone
serious of fraud would not be much hindered by the constitution.
My mother was a test tube; my father was a knife. Friday
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C