On 12/03/08 at 09:57 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > Questions about that issue: > > > > 1) You seem to think that delegating someone now would be useful. Why? > > > > > > I think we should ask a debian-tied lawyer before doing a lot of unfun > > > work which may turn out to be useless if we get it wrong. I'm not > > > confident that we can do this through SPI unless the DPL or a delegate > > > asks, because some SPI members seem to oppose it without that. Even > > > so, I think SPI is the best route for the project to ask a lawyer. > > > > I agree, but why are you asking for a delegation (constitution 5.1.1) > > instead of simply asking the DPL to tell SPI that X is going to be the > > interface between -www@ and SPI on that issue. > > Firstly, I expect this could take longer than one DPL and it's the > sort of task that seems to get lost in handovers. > > Secondly, delegation should make X's task clear to both this project > and SPI in a robust way and seemed the most obvious to me. How does > the constitution give the DPL a power to tell SPI that X is going to > be the interface, except by delegating some aspect of the DPL's power > under 5.1.10?
5.1.10 answers the money problem. I don't think it answers the "authority" problem. Anyway, I'm not opposed to a formal delegation. I'm just not convinced (yet) that it's required. > > Ultimately, after legal advice is seeked, it's still -www@ who is going > > to decide, no? > > Maybe. If there's really no consensus, maybe all developers should > be asked to throw in their two-penn'orth in a GR. Not great, but one > of the few resolution tools the project has. ACK. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
