From: | Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, Adam Fedor <fedor(at)doc(dot)com>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GNUstep project support |
Date: | 2004-11-05 16:07:54 |
Message-ID: | 16779.42330.448977.908853@chiark.greenend.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> Right right, the framework resolution says we acknowledge who we see as
> responsible.
>
> Paragraph 4 of this resolution could perhaps thus read:
>
> '4. The GNUstep maintainer, at the time of the passing of this resolution
> is Adam Fedor. He will serve as the project's representative until SPI is
> informed otherwise by the GNUstep project.'
Maybe we should avoid the term `representative'. Both my paragraph
and yours use it, but it seems to be causing confusion. There are
(at least) two kinds of `representative': there's the board Advisor,
and there's the person (or people) who we acknowledge to be in
ultimate charge.
I'm trying to think of a suitable wording. Perhaps:
4. The GNUstep maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, is recognised by
SPI as the authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.
Ian.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin Schulze | 2004-11-05 16:41:20 | Re: GNUstep project support |
Previous Message | Ian Jackson | 2004-11-05 15:55:52 | OpenC++ project |