On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:54 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > I'd have to disagree, insomuch that when the vocal community makes it > extremely difficult for a DPL to do something new, and given the > proven difficulty to determine consensus *until* a recall election is > forced where the vocal minority was definitively shown to be a very > small minority indeed, that there is something badly broken in > Debian's governance model.
I think we may be in violent agreement again, Ted... ;-) I'm glad that the constitutional process did the right thing when invoked, while you're lamenting a state of affairs inside the Debian project where such a constitutional process was invoked at all. > SPI should not stick its nose or > try to interpret the politics of any of its projects; Debian is just > one very good example why it shouldn't have anbything to do with a > project's internal politics. I actually think this is a point that (nearly?) everyone involved in this discussion agrees with. If SPI is to avoid "sticking its nose" into Debian project internals, then the resolution under discussion is an important tool in that it is effectively an interface specification between SPI and Debian. I think we've gotten pretty good at writing these for recently associated projects, and am pleased that we're getting around to putting one in place for the Debian interface. Bdale _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
