Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

[Ian Jackson]

Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> Replace paragraphs 3 through 5 of the non-whereas portion of Ian's
> resolution with the following:

I think this is going in a reasonable direction but I still have a
slight problem with it, which is that it shifts the dictatorship from
the DPL to the Secretary.  You say

> the Secretary is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution

but in fact they are not empowered off their own bat to interpret the
constitution however they like.  There has to be a dispute.

Having seen how the power to interpret the constitution has been used,
with hindsight I would not have vested it in the Secretary; the TC
would probably have been a better choice since it (a) consists of
several different people and (b) avoids some of the situations which
look rather too much like self-dealing.

> 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.

Would you accept

 5. The Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure the Board
 is made aware of any situations where there is disagreement on the
 identity or authority of the Debian Project Leader or the Debian
 Project Secretary.

?

Note that we're only asking DD's to _make the board aware_.  After
that they're not supposed to keep bothering us - we can say `thank you
we are aware, now we will consider it and there is no need to mail us
any more'.

If we're worried about people CCing the board on hideous flamewars we
can explicitly ask them not to do that.  For example:

 3. The SPI Board does not intend to monitor the Debian mailing lists
 and does not wish to be copied on any discussions of political
 disputes carried out on those lists.   ....

Ian.