On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:37:07PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > Josh, would you agree that the part of section 8 that talks about 'any > dispute regarding decisions' is the problem, and not the entire section 8? > I pointed this out in an earlier mail, but it went under the radar, it seems. > > The bit about 'any change regarding authority' is worth keeping IMO. > Authority is strictly defined under the Debian Constitution, and the said > document is introduced already in section 5. Indeed, if the extra stuff > about disputes is removed, section 8 becomes just a logical extension > of section 5.
I like that suggestion. I have an amendment to Ian's proposal which is a slight improvement on that which avoids the "300 liaisons" issue. Please note that my amendment uses the paragraph numbering in the draft resolution version on the SPI website here: http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/draft-resolutions/2007-02-28-iwj.1.html --- cut here --- Replace paragraphs 3 through 5 of the non-whereas portion of Ian's resolution with the following: 3. The SPI Board does not intend to monitor the Debian mailing lists. The Board will recognise decisions, statements, and delegations made by the Debian Project Leader, currently Anthony Towns, as made on behalf of Debian, except to the extent this assumption is contradicted by information to the SPI Board by the Debian Project Secretary in accordance with paragraph 4. 4. The Board specifically asks that the Debian Project Secretary inform the SPI Board of any Debian General Resolutions which might be relevant to SPI, including any proposals to put spending on hold, as well as any dispute or change regarding the identity or authority of the Debian Project Leader. 5. The Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure the Board is made aware of any situations in which the Debian Project Leader and the Debian Project Secretary disagree on the identity or authority of the Debian Project Secretary. --- cut here --- Ian, will you be willing to accept these changes? I think it keeps most of your intent while satisfying most of the critics. The set of topics about which the Board would be needing to act in response to communications from "Debian Developers and others" with this revision is simply to resolve identity and authority crises reflecting a breakdown of the system of one normal and one backup contact, and in no other situation. It also doesn't seem to upset the power structure in Debian between the DPL and the Secretary as per the Constitution, given that the Secretary is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and election results, but the DPL is the primary external representative of Debian. - Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
