Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

[Joshua D. Drake]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
>> 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?
> 
> It is exactly this attitude which shows why this extra paragraph is
> needed.
> 
> Josh Berkus says it's not needed because the DD's will tell us anyway.

Well I certainly don't think we should rely on non position holding
members (the information is great, thank you but we need an
authoritative point).

> But Joshua says it's wrong because we won't/shouldn't listen to the
> DD's and should pay attention only to the liason !

Well let me be clear and state that I am assuming that Debian has
control of its structure.

> 
> As previously discussed, SPI has already committed to honouring
> Debian's governance structures.  And that includes honouring decisions
> properly made _even if the appointed liason fails to pass them on_.
> 
> (Also, saying "DDs can ... remove the Liason" is pointless if the
> decision to remove the liason is to be passed on by the liason.)

My assumption is that it works like this:

Liaison does something bad
DD removes Liaison
DD elects new Liaison
New Liaison informs SPI of decision, and shows motion where passed
(however that is done.

Of course there is the question of what happens *in between* and thus:

If the old Liaison does something *really* bad, New Liaison requests
funds to take legal action against old bad mojo Liaison.

> 
> 
> I'm sorry to have to do this but I am adamantly opposed to any motion
> of this form which does not have an explict recognition of this
> principle:
> 
> If the Debian postholders do not carry out their responsibilities to
> properly convey Debian's decisions to us, we (a) want DDs to tell us
> about this and (b) we will act on those decisions even if the
> postholders prevaricate or obstruct.

I could probably live with (b), (a) to me is a no op. Who is to
determine if what the DDs tell us is valid, appropriate or even necessary?

Just look at the whole Dunc Tank debacle..

> 
> 
> But I think we've got quite enough of a political shitstorm in Debian
> as it is and putting me in this position is not going to lead to the
> quiet life you're apparently aiming for!

I am not looking for a quiet life, if that was the case.. I would be
making 150k a year somewhere as an employee not spending my time here
;). I am however trying to insure a level of sanity.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> 
> Ian.


-- 

      === 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
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

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