Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
Nick Phillips <nwp@nz.lemon-computing.com> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
> > >> + It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in
> > >> + trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the handling of
> > >> + such assets, as an example:
[...]
> You're right to correct the original, but I don't think you've nailed it
> yet.
>
> If there's a "should" then "obligation" is clearly the wrong word to go
> with it. And you don't "undertake an obligation" -- you "meet an
> obligation", or "undertake to meet" it.
Agreed. I don't think obligation in the original meant a MUST
or a will, but something more like offering certain undertakings,
but I could be wrong. How about:
Organizations holding assets in trust for Debian should make
certain promises about their handling of such assets...
> or
>
> It is preferred that organisations holding assets in trust for Debian
> should comply with certain conditions regarding their handling of such
> assets...
?
Thanks for the phrasing help,
--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: