Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organisations holding assets in trust for Debian should
undertake reasonable obligations for the handling of such
assets.
As an example of best practice at the time of writing,
SPI have made the following undertakings:
Needless to say I think this is the best wording. The use of
`should' (whose meaning is spelled out in appendix B) is helpful, I
think.
There was an objection to the idea of undertaking obligations,
so it may confuse some people. It could be reworded as
Organisations holding assets in trust for Debian should
make reasonable undertakings about the handling of such
assets.
or something like meet reasonable obligations depending
on the intended sense.
Also, SPI is a corporation, so should it be SPI has made
instead of SPI have made or just side-step with SPI made?
I agree the use of 'should' is helpful in explanation.
Please could this amendment be integrated?
In general, I still think that section is too weak and leaves the
way open for directing donations to undesirable organisations
which do not make any undertakings. It should be just 'make'.
Best wishes,
--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
