Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

[Ian Jackson]

Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> I have to pick a level of risk to worry about, and I'm much less worried
> about the risk of people inventing disagreements about the DPL's
> identity for sake of DoSing the board than I am about the very real
> likelihood that there will always be DDs who dissent from the majority
> view of the scope of the DPL's authority. I also don't care for this
> purpose if non-DDs are mistaken about any of the above.

Let me give an example scenario on which we might be disagreeing:

Supposing the DPL and Secretary ask us to spend some money, and while
we're double-checking or getting around to a board vote or whatever, a
bunch of developers get a quorum for a put-on-hold; but suppose the
Secretary drags her feet for whatever reason (perhaps because she
agrees with the decision, or perhaps just because she's busy).

Now I would like one of those developers to mail the SPI board and say
`we have enough people to put this decision on hold; here are their
names and references to the procedure we're following'.

But note that your criteria (the DPL and Secretary disagree about each
others' authority or identity) are not met.


Perhaps there's another way to address your DoS concern.  What we
really want is to make sure that we're told about disputes that are
(a) relevant to us and which (b) we don't know about already.
Obviously if we already know about a dispute then we don't want to be
told again and I think being told once doesn't constitute a DoS.

So perhaps:

  (n).  The SPI Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure
  that if the validity of a Debian decision relevant to SPI is
  disputed, the Board's attention is drawn to the existence of the
  dispute, if the Board might otherwise remain unaware of it.

So we only ask for notification of the existence of the dispute and
only if we didn't know about it anyway.

Ian.