Re: Draft of new associated-project-howto for review

Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: Draft of new associated-project-howto for review"):
> 2) A thing that is not mentioned at all is liability protection of
> individual developers.

This should be mentioned, but only to explicitly say that this is not
something that SPI offers to its members or associated projects. This
is so that SPI does not need to take charge of projects or become
involved in their governance (unless SPI is asked to, of course).

> Whatever the SPI's position on that is, it could be good to clarify.

Right.

> 3) Liaison
...
> This model has many advantages over a single self appointed person
> having all control, but doesn't really add any overhead in normal
> circumstances. I'd recommend to template this format and suggest it as
> an alternative (or the primary?) model of appointing a liaison.

I think a reasonable alternative model is:

* Alice Adams (and her successors) are currently recognised by SPI as
the authoritative decisionmakers for Gnomovision.

* In the event of any dispute within the Gnomovision project, SPI
will aim to
(a) abide by the consensus of the Gnomovision community
(b) act in the best interests of the Gnomovision project
[choose one]
provided always that SPI will honour the principles in SPI's
Framework for Associated Projects. If such decision is necessary,
it will be made, after public consultation, by the SPI Board.
The SPI Board's decision, as to who is recognised by SPI as the
authoritative decisionmaker for Gnomovision, will be final.

Ie I think the SPI Board should be willing to act as a governance
appeal body of last resort, if that's what the project wants. That
will avoid the project having to set up some kind of self-perpetuating
council or committee whose only purpose is to deal with SPI.

Obviously not every project will want this.

Ian.

(spi-private dropped from the CC list)