On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:08:52 +0100, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>>> Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +0000, Martin Michlmayr
>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> >> They should be treated like people who don't follow their
>>> >> duties,
>>> > We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I
>>> > looked all over the constitution, and failed.
>>> The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the
>>> maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on
>>> the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy
>>> et al.
>>
>> Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite:
>>
>> 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to
>> do
>> work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
>> has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
> So? That's what I said.
>> However, they must not actively work against these rules and
>> decisions properly made under them.
>>
> If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to
> actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others
> that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to "actively work
> against these rules and decisions" in my book.
Not in mine. Shall we ask for an official interpretation of
the constitution?
manoj
--
Boob's Law: You always find something in the last place you look.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
