SPI's respect for debian resolutions, was: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:02:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As I said on debian-project(?) I obviously agree with those
> statements.

To be a little more clearer than last time; I consider the "project
representative" position to be responsible for communicating that
project's decisions to SPI, and communicating anything relevant from SPI
back to the project. I think having the DPL be Debian's representative
is simple and expedient and that's about it. If Debian sees it as a
potential conflict of interest, it's easily changed, but I think it'd
be a lot of hassle for no benefit.

> If it would be helpful to Debian, I will draft a resolution in the
> now-standard format describing our current understanding of our
> relationship with Debian.
> 
> AJ, do you think that would be helpful ?

I think this is mostly something that would be helpful for MJ, rather than
Debian as a whole; but I'd certainly expect SPI to have something in its
books making it official how Debian's decisions are communicated to SPI.

Cheers,
aj

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20070216/733f8377/attachment.pgp