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

Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project

On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:47:12PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> "Manoj Srivastava" <srivasta@debian.org> wrote in message 
> [🔎] 87bqrgdpg3.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com">news:[🔎] 87bqrgdpg3.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com...
> >On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:56:59 +0200, Bernhard R Link <brlink@debian.org> 
> >said:
> >
> >>A GR should wait - within reasonable time - until developers can
> >>have the information they need for a informed decision.
> >
> >       The constitution specifies the time that the GR needs to be in
> >discussion, and the period determined is a  minimum of two weeks.
> >
> >>Changing something important like this without some statement from
> >>the people directly involved in this would otherwise look so rushed
> >>that at least my caution would default me to oppose any change.
> >
> >       The SPI board is not directly involved in anything Debian does
> >to allow other organizations (like the UK debian society) to accept
> >funds for Debian.
> That is true. However this ammendment substancially changes the section
> that talks about SPI, so it would be reasonable to have SPI's board look at 
> it if they so desire.
> At best they could find some text that ought to be tweeked, and at worst 
> they could have no input.
> This ammendment is in no real hurry, as it mearlly re-affrims the status 
> quo, and tweeks a few related lines.
> Of course it is your ammendment, so it is your decision. 

That's not actually true.

The Debian constitution:

5. Project Leader

  5.1. Powers
   The project leader may:
    8. Vary the discussion period for Developers' votes [...]

Now also go read <[🔎] 20060721062156.GB1780@azure.humbug.org.au>, which

[...] So if this proposal receives enogh seconds to go to a vote, please
consider this an extension of the discussion period of up to a week [...]


Wouter (who wonders what the hell we're talking about here -- it's only
a week, fer crying out loud)

Of course, technically there's also

7. The Project Secretary

  7.1. Powers

   The Secretary:
    3. Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution.

But I don't expect Manoj to abuse that -- if he would, I expect

   If the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary cannot agree
   on a new appointment they must ask the board of SPI (see §9.1.) to
   appoint a Secretary.

to happen. Or so, since we seem to be restating the way SPI and Debian

Wouldn't it be nice if we got along?

-- Wouter (who wonders what the hell we're talking about here -- it's
only a week, for crying out loud. Sarge, err, took *slightly* longer
than that)

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: