Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:20:24PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > Yes, but sorry if this question was unclear: What says SPI only listens > > > > to > > > > the DPL, not the project? > > > > > > I'll extract the exact line from the above text for you: > > > ... state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to > > > act for the project ... > > > > > > In this case, the DPL. > > > > Is that an official statement of the SPI board? > > > > No, it's my reading of the resolution as a Debian Developer.
In other words: this doesn't show anything that supports the claim that 'SPI usually has a defined authorisationship with an associated project, this refers to people, not the project as a whole or their developers or their internal voting results' applies to debian, or that SPI's current understanding is that only the DPL is authorised to act. I know that most of SPI's recently-invited projects have been benevolent dictatorships, but I also know that SPI resolved to follow the OFTC constitution, so I don't see why SPI won't follow the debian one. SPI's project framework claims non-interference in project internal decision-making processes, so I suggest that Joey was mistaken. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]