Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5) "):
...
> I suggest certain changes between the double lines; lines beginning `X ='
> are to be deleted and replaced:Thanks a lot. (Your notation was very difficult, btw. You might like to look into using `diff -u'.) I have incorporated your changes into 0.6.1, which is now available at: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.6.1.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation.html (I have not made these changes formal). > [Not relevant to your question:] The last clause of this sentence is unclear > in its effect. It appears to mean that someone (unspecified) may appeal > to SPI to make a decision for Debian over the heads of all other authority > specified in the rest of this constitution. I suggest that it would be > better to omit this. It now says explicitly that it's the constitution which refers to SPI as a decision body of last resort. > My changes are intended to remove the appearance of control that is > equivalent to ownership. If SPI is a separate legal person, Debian > can have no legal authority which is not granted by SPI's own > constitution. Therefore it is wrong for this constitution to assert > any such authority. Right. > I therefore changed clause 9.2 to make it clear that SPI have made > certain undertakings. [I hope that this is actually the case?] They haven't yet, but mainly because we haven't finalised this. > It would be as well to get a NY state lawyer/accountant to take a > look as well. The best thing to do is probably to have Tim Sailer's friendly laywers look over it when we're close to taking a vote, and then if they like it the SPI board can agree to it. I think there's not much doubt that the SPI board will agree. > A highly relevant question here is, who has authority over SPI to make > them keep these undertakings if they were to break them? I imagine that > Debian's officers could do so, but the grounds would be breach of trust > (an external authority) or of SPI's own rules. In neither case could this > constitution be cited as an authority over SPI. That seems reasonable. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
