Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 18:37 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as
> associated project [revised]"):
> > 6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the
> SPI Board
> > unless each liaison, within that time, has accepted it on behalf
> of
> > OpenWRT, agreed with the other liaison on a single willing third
> person
> > who will be asked to resolve disagreeing instructions from the
> two
> > liaisons, and communicated that choice to the Board.
>
> I don't think this is the right protocol.
>
I agree with this. We should have one person that we are accountable to.
That person is accountable to their project. If the project wishes to
have a "backup" liaison that is fine. In fact PostgreSQL.Org has done
that in the past. I was unavailable for a short time so I delegated to
Robert Treat who is the board advisor for PostgreSQL.Org.

>
> If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
> some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
> Debian to provide a third person to distinguish (as if we were some
> kind of computational black box). We would review the relevant
> documents (ie, the Debian Constitution), and the relevant lists, and
> make our own minds up whether the decision was properly taken.

We would? I would expect that the Debian project would deal with its own
internal problem and the governing body of Debian would respond back.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997