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

Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: Draft of new associated-project-howto for review"):
> An "appeal body of last resort" may not be a bad idea, or maybe it is,
> but in any case this is not at all the same as I proposed.

Indeed, it is entirely different to what you proposed. It's a
different option and I'm not advocating it for your project or indeed
for any project in particular.

I just think it's a way of setting things up that's more lightweight
from the project's point of view, which some projects may prefer.

> I think the
> above is much fluffier and leaves some uncertainty:
>
> Imagine a project with three active/core developers. One is the
> self-appointed liaision. The liaison dies, and the remaining two core
> developers start a bitter fight. How will the SPI board even be able
> to know what is in the best interest of the project? It's to some
> degree a subjective decision. It could even be a political decision
> such as GPL vs BSD and whatever other dividing lines those two
> fighting developers might represent...

Indeed, what you say is absolutely true. The different between the
option I'm presenting and the "liason governing council" idea, is that
in the latter case the governing council must decide, whereas in the
former the SPI Board must decide.

As to how the board would decide: it would send a consultation - a
request for opinions - on the project's mailing list, and review the
recent mailing list traffic, and come to a conclusion. That would be
some work for the board but this kind of situation occurs very rarely.

Ian.