Re: GNUstep project support

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

You could also use the term lead developer which may be more suitable
depending on the project in question.

Regards,

Joey

--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea.