Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Ian Jackson ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri Mar 16 19:42:38 UTC 2007

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> 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).

The authoritative point is _as defined in the constitution_ which is a
public document which we have promised to follow.  And every DD has
certain powers; in particular a certain number of them can cause a
decision to be frozen.

> > 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..

I don't think Dunc Tank was a debacle from SPI's point of view.  The
only reason we had any serious argument about at all was this very
point that we're arguing about again now.

Obviously there was lots and lots of discussion in Debian but I don't
see the problem really.


More information about the Spi-general mailing list