Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Joshua D. Drake jd at commandprompt.com
Fri Mar 16 18:54:10 UTC 2007

Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
> Given that we say in point (1) that the authority of the DPL & Secretary 
> derive from the Debian constitution, I really don't see why (5) is necessary 
> at all.  The only "dispute of authority" I'm willing to accept will be one 
> grounded in the constitution, and if there is such a dispute we can take it 
> as assumed that some DD or Board member will bring it up.
> No matter how we re-write (5), it's superfluous and an invitation to DD's to 
> argue with the DPL on the SPI-lists.  Again, I would like it to be simply 
> removed.

O.k. since it has come back up :). I pretty much have to agree with Josh
here. This is not the SPIs problem or business. If the DPL & Secretary
are bound by the Debian constitution, so are the DDs.

Let Debian deal with it, and report (via the Liaison) to SPI the motion
etc...  If the Secretary drags his/her feet, then the DDs can form a
quorum to recall her yes?



Joshua D. Drake


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

More information about the Spi-general mailing list