I'm astonished at the pushback I'm having on the question of the extent of the DPL's authority, and what SPI's position should be.
The situation is clear and there is absolutely no choice for SPI in this matter. SPI _must_ honour the Debian Constitution, even in case(s) where individual(s) (even the DPL) have a different view. According to the Associated Project Framework[1], which is the basis for the relationship between SPI and Debian: If a Project has rules and procedures about its relationship with SPI then SPI will honour them (for example by implementing decisons about property held for that Project if and only if they are made according to those rules and procedures) provided that they are consistent with its agreement with SPI and with SPI's goals, policies and legal obligations. If a Project's internal organization or procedures are unclear or disputed, SPI will deal with the situation as fairly as possible; if possible SPI will act according to the decisions or rough consensus of the Project's participants or in case of doubt that of the whole Community. The rules and procedures in question, in Debian's case, are precisely the Debian constitution. Note that in cases of doubt SPI is obliged to look at, and give effect to, the project's governance structures. This is an essential function for SPI. Since we have actual control over the purse-strings it falls to us to give effect to the project's decisionmaking. We can't evade that responsibility by nominating a particular individual and always deferring to them. Finally, this document is not just a feel-good policy statement and doing as it says is not optional. The Framework is the basis of the agreements between SPI and our associated projects and has been the basis of our relationship with Debian for nearly a decade. It is morally binding on SPI. Additionally, it is legally binding on SPI as regards property held by SPI for purposes related to Debian: that document is the basis of the explicit charitable trust which governs how SPI may make use of those assets. So, SPI's deferral to the Debian Constitution is not optional, any more than SPI's deferral to New York charity law is optional. (Obviously the latter takes precedence, as described in the Framework.) Ian. [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-08-10-iwj.1 _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
