On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:59:38PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated
> Project status"):
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:17:33PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I'm afraid that this fails to clarify precisely the situation that was
> > > being disputed. What if the representative fails to honour some
> > > Debian GR ?
> > Then that's something for Debian to resolve, up to and including
> > appointing a new project representative.
> Err, boggle. Firstly, dealing with that that way in Debian might well
> be too slow. And secondly, the representative might `fail to
> communicate' that they had been replaced.In what was is this different for Debian than any other project that might wish to associate with SPI? > There is absolutely no need to make the representative some kind of > all-governing oracle. To do so is definitely wrong and leaves us open > to abuse of authority. Project representatives advise SPI, they don't have the ability to force SPI to act. > In the case of other projects where we've nominated an individual as > the `authoritative decisionmaker', that person was the leader of the > project. And, uh, the "authoritative decisionmaker" for Debian is the duly elected leader of the Debian project. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
