Constitution, and SPI section s.9
I've mailed the SPI Board proposing that they agree to the following: 1. SPI will hold money, trademarks and other tangible and intangible property and manage other affairs for purposes related to Debian. 2. Such property will be accounted for separately and held in trust for those purposes, decided on by Debian and SPI according to this section. 3. SPI will not dispose of or use property held in trust for purposes related to Debian without approval from Debian, which may be granted by the Project Leader or by General Resolution of the Developers. 4. SPI will consider using or disposing of property held in trust for purposes related to Debian when asked to do so by the Project Leader. 5. SPI will use or dispose of property held in trust for purposes related to Debian when asked to do so by a General Resolution of the Developers, provided that this is compatible with SPI's legal authority. 6. SPI will notify the Developers by electronic mail to a Debian Project mailing list when it uses or disposes of property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. NB that this has a couple of extra occurrences of `purposes related to' which I seem to have missed out from the most recent posted version of the constitution. Unless anyone objects I plan to have the corrected version voted on without going through the formal amendment process (which would involve waiting two weeks, or having voters choose which version they wanted to accept), as I consider this change not to be substantive. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitution, and SPI section s.9
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Constitution, and SPI section s.9): We have yet to see, or even hear about the charter for SPI. Those who have attempted to get such information from the State of New York, have been told this document is not available. It is my understanding that such charters of incorporation are public knowledge and should be freely available. Other hearsay indicates that you (Ian) have a copy of this document, and may even have read it ;-) I have a paper copy, and have skimread it. I am deeply concerned about making statements in the Debian Constitution with respect to an undefined SPI corporate entity. I can quite understand this concern. SPI, through its appointed spokesperson (also undeclared), has made no attempt to clear up this lack of information, and so far neither have you, Ian, in either your position as leader, or that of an SPI boardmember. I've asked Tim et al for an electronic copy, but they don't have one. I've now asked if it would be OK for me to scan in my paper copy. I am not in favor of voting on the Constitution until I have heard quite a bit more about what SPI thinks it is supposed to be about. I think the articles of incorporation should answer that question for you. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitution, and SPI section s.9
Ian Jackson - Debian Project Leader writes (Re: Constitution, and SPI section s.9): ... I've asked Tim et al for an electronic copy, but they don't have one. I've now asked if it would be OK for me to scan in my paper copy. ... and he has said he does not object. So, given that two of the board agree I shall do this tomorrow. (I don't have them here with me.) Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Release management - politics
Just briefly: we will _not_ be voting on release process/ architecture. This is a technical decision, and is therefore up to the developers concerned (Brian, mainly), and the Technical Committee. Technical design and decisions must not be left to a vote. I'll be making another posting about technical matters. I think that it would be generally a good idea to step back from the details proposals that people (myself included) have been making and try to identify some of the key issues and overall options. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7)
Please see http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.7.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-formal.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation.html for the latest draft constitution. If there are no more significant comments and amendents I shall call for a vote in two weeks [4.2(4), A.2]. I call on Manoj to formally withdraw [A.4, 4.2(5)] his proposed amendment, as I believe based on public and private email I've answered all of the concerns it addressed. I hereby propose and accept an amendment to my motion, for the changes from 0.6, at ...-0.6.html, to this version. Changes since 0.6, most significant first: * Debian's property in s.9 (SPI) changed to Property held in trust for purposes related to Debian, to avoid possible tax liability and other legal problems. This is a significant substantive change ! * Person who calls for a vote must collate motions, amendments, etc., though Secretary doesn't have to use their collation. * Proposer of a resolution can suggest wording changes to amendments, to take effect if amender agrees as well and no seconders (of the amendment) object. * Technical Committee member can't vote on motions to overrule themselves as a developer, unless they're the Chairman (who only gets a casting vote anyway). * Technical Committee has a quorum, of two _including_ the chairman (who can not otherwise vote, usually, having only a casting vote). * Section on withdrawing (A.4) is now clearer and (probably) has more sensible effect. * `Decision body of last recourse' sentence about SPI clarified. * Decisionmakers listed in rough order of precedence. (No substantive change, though.) * Typo and numbering fixes. Ian. (Please honour the `Reply-To: debian-devel' header.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *** The Upcoming Release of Hamm ***
Brian White writes (*** The Upcoming Release of Hamm ***): There seems to be a lot of speculation about the upcoming release of Hamm. The date April 20th seems to be the favorite date that is getting passed around. I can guarantee everyone right now that no release will be made at that time. Good. As you say, we are not ready. ... I'm feeling sick and am very busy, so I'm going to be blunt here... Lively discussions about whether this is good or bad and the things that can be done about it are largely pointless. More discussion is not going to get it out the door sooner. The only thing that is _really_ going to help is to roll up your seleves and get down dirty. We need backbones -- not jawbones or wishbones. Brian is absolutely right. So, when will Hamm be released? You decide. It's up to the devolpers to set the date by fixing the problems that are currently holding up the release. As soon as the last release-necessary bug gets closed or downgraded, we'll probably be ready to ship. Can I propose the following ? When we get into this state we announce an `early beta' and delay the release for at least a further two weeks to see if any more release-necessary bugs arise, or if there is discussion about the status of a bug. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call for recommendations for the Technical Committee
As I said, I want to appoint the Technical Committee. However, I would like to gather some input from the developers before I decide on my preferred committee. So: if you feel someone is technically excellent and likely otherwise to be overlooked (for example, because they've not been active very much during the times when I have, or in different threads/lists) please mail me at the address above. In support of such recommendations I'd be particularly interested in reports of instances where the person was in dispute about some technical matter with someone else. A reference to the discussion would be especially good. Please do not discuss this on the list; I think that would be likely to reopen old discussions and/or generate more heat than light. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Constitution - formal proposal (v0.6.1)
Please see http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.6.1.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation.html for the latest draft constitution. These changes are not yet formal. Changes (numbering as in new): s.1: List of decisionmakers rearranged and sentence added to help convey partial authority graph. s.6.3(2): Tech ctte members can't vote on whether to overrule themselves as a developer (unless they're the chairman, in which case they get only a casting vote as usual). s.9: Changes mainly suggested by Oliver Elphick to avoid perception of tax liability, c. s.A.1(5): Proposer of resolution may suggest changes to wordings of amendments, which the proposer of the amendment must accept and the seconders of the amendment may reject. s.A.4: Section on withdrawing clarified. s.A.4,5,6: renumbered (there were two s.A.3's). Ian. (Please honour the `Reply-To: debian-devel' header.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
