Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Ian Jackson ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Thu Mar 1 19:17:33 UTC 2007

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> I'd personally replace the rest with something like:
>   5. Debian may name an advisor to the board, who will have access to
>      the board private discussion, but (unless that person is already a
>      member of the board) shall not have any vote on the board.

The advisor is covered by 2004-08-10.iwj.dbg.3 `Board Advisors'.

>   6. Debian will appoint a project representative to SPI, who shall
>      communicate decisions made by the project to the board, and serve
>      as a single point of contact for the board to communicate with
>      the project.

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 ?  Now obviously we expect them not to but the resolution
should be written so that these cases are properly covered.

My version makes it clear that if the representative fails to honour a
GR (or some other aspect of Debian's governance) then (a) the SPI
Board won't necessarily find this out by itself so it will need to be
told and (b) when it is told the SPI Board will investigate with a
view to honouring both the letter and spirit of Debian's governance
arrangements as stated in the Constitution.


More information about the Spi-general mailing list