Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100]: > Dear Debian voters, > > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if > only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary for Debian > to issue such statement, and I am quite unconvinced the GR process is the best > option for the purpose of drafting such statement. > > I note that this is not the first law proposal that impact Debian and we never > did used the GR process for issuing a position statement. We never did _successfully_ use it. We have _tried_ to use it (i.e. 2021_002). I suggesteed we do a GR to give the proposal, in case it gets accepted, more legitimacy. We can, IMO, express the project opinion via: ① A personal initiative / delegation from the DPL (that can stem from a request made to them or can be initiated by the DPL themself), ② The Technical Committee, requested formally by project members, or speaking of its own initiative (at some point, I argued that one of the the TC members could be the "Random DD" asking the Tc for their opinion on a given matter), or ③ The GR process. At this point, and in part given that GR 2021_003 introduced time limits, I think the GR process might produce the swiftest results, and it will yield the best legitimacy-wise (i.e. the whole project is invited to debate and improve the proposed text, and accept it above/below the approval threshold. > The DPL could delegate to a group of people knowledgeable in EU law to draft > a statement that is congruent with the interest of Debian. This text was in fact drafted by a lawyer (I don't know if by a _set_ of lawyers) and discussed among DDs at several in-person meetings before reaching this stage. I strongly advocated using the GR process, as it has already been subjected to a long discussion, and the timeframe for it to be usefully considered is drawing to an end. Please do note that I did not submit the text myself: I thought it would be better if Santiago, who was the only present DD with European nationality (French), to be the presenter (and me being "just" a seconder). But yes, I stand behind arguing for this document to be GR'ed. > EU law is significantly different from US law and publishing a statement that > either misrepresent the CRA or the current state of EU law is not likely to > be taken seriously, so we need some care. > > We have legitimate reasons to feel concerned by the impact of this law, but > all the more reasons to act cautiously. > > I advocated previously against using the GR process to issues statements > related to non-technical issues outside of Debian and I reiterate it here. I believe it is the right venue to process and discuss this kind of arguments. I'm willing to have this discussion as well --- but do note that the GR proposal has already been submitted. Of course, seconders can "un-second" it, and the Secretary might decide to withdraw the process if it happens. But I believe there is no reason for this to continue its course, maybe in parallel to this discussion.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature