Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7)

[Santiago Vila]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

 5. No detailed design work.
Then Technical Committee does not engage in design of new

Should be "The", I think.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1

iQCVAgUBNUcduSqK7IlOjMLFAQGkhAP+LvASURChex4byQh9nbEvV44sZUkfL8Pr
cb46lY3Qs/3fb2sPJfiJgjjWLuFwYaRLSuRnyYwt5YKI3EA44TAEpy0TZktf9Dha
ZPJ3Y1ZZ2j58zn+HmabnqhfgxcsWN5XdPzO1y5hVoVRWOo/zRRXhWadSQUKrRS5a
7zM0GQnYoG4=
=Ev27
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7) (comments)

[Ian Jackson]

Richard Braakman writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7) 
(comments)"):
...
> All three looked the same to me; I hope they were :-)

Yes; I should make this clearer next time.

> I had trouble understanding the second paragraph of section 1:
> 
>This document describes the organisational structure for formal
>decisionmaking in the Project. It does not describe the goals of the
>Project or how it achieves them, or contain any specific nontechnical
>policies not directly related to the decisionmaking process.
> 
> There were too many negations in that last sentence.  I suggest to
> drop the words "specific nontechnical" (it doesn't contain any
> technical policies either, so that's ok), and replace "not
> directly related" with "other than those directly related".

You're right.

> I also have a more substantive comment.  The Constitution seems to
> contain no provision for a developer to leave the Project, other than
> by expulsion.  I think that s.3.2 should state that a developer may
> leave the Project at any time, by stating so publicly or by informing
> the Project Secretary (who will presumably make a public statement).

I've added a general statement that you can leave the project or
resign from a post by public announcement.

> I assumed that the Project Secretary would keep the authoritative list
> of Debian developers, but s.7.1 makes no mention of that.  Perhaps it
> should?  Determining the current set of developers is a non-trivial
> task.

Yes, also fixed.

> In addition, I am still not sure about the role of SPI.  s.9.2 says
> "SPI have made the following undertakings" and then gives a list.  Is
> this currently true?  I think it should be true before a vote is
> called, at least.

Yes, I'll try to arrange for it to be true.  If not then we'll have to
vote on "seeking the following undertakings" or some such.

> The introduction to s.9 also says "Debian's developers are currently
> members of SPI by virtue of their status as developers".  Is this
> true?  It would seem to depend on SPI's charter, not Debian's, and we
> don't have that.

I have a paper copy, which I have yet to read.

Has anyone else any more comments ?  If not I'll post a 0.8 with these
few minor changes.  In the meantime, -0.7.1 has the current draft.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7)

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

After reading the seventh revision of the proposed
 constituion, I find that all my concerns and changes encapsulated in
 my proposed amendment have been addressed, and I formally withdraw
 the amendment.

manoj
-- 
 A good dinner sharpens wit, while it softens the heart.  -- Doran
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7) (comments)

[Richard Braakman]

Ian Jackson - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> 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.

All three looked the same to me; I hope they were :-)

I had trouble understanding the second paragraph of section 1:

   This document describes the organisational structure for formal
   decisionmaking in the Project. It does not describe the goals of the
   Project or how it achieves them, or contain any specific nontechnical
   policies not directly related to the decisionmaking process.

There were too many negations in that last sentence.  I suggest to
drop the words "specific nontechnical" (it doesn't contain any
technical policies either, so that's ok), and replace "not
directly related" with "other than those directly related".

I also have a more substantive comment.  The Constitution seems to
contain no provision for a developer to leave the Project, other than
by expulsion.  I think that s.3.2 should state that a developer may
leave the Project at any time, by stating so publicly or by informing
the Project Secretary (who will presumably make a public statement).

I assumed that the Project Secretary would keep the authoritative list
of Debian developers, but s.7.1 makes no mention of that.  Perhaps it
should?  Determining the current set of developers is a non-trivial
task.

In addition, I am still not sure about the role of SPI.  s.9.2 says
"SPI have made the following undertakings" and then gives a list.  Is
this currently true?  I think it should be true before a vote is
called, at least.

The introduction to s.9 also says "Debian's developers are currently
members of SPI by virtue of their status as developers".  Is this
true?  It would seem to depend on SPI's charter, not Debian's, and we
don't have that.

Richard Braakman


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7)

[Ian Jackson - Debian Project Leader]

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]