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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 1) What was the resolution of potential legal liabilities for OpenWRT?
> Not that this means we should reject them, just that we should be informed.

I think you're confusing this with the Helios Initiative, where we did have
concerns like you mention due to their focus on hardware donations. We resolved
those by getting legal advice, which said that we can go ahead and just need to
pay attention to some procedural and other details that don't affect our
ability to serve their needs. Helios was approved last month. I'm not aware of
any such issues for OpenWRT, and a cursory look over the past emails relating
to them didn't reveal any.

> > 4. Currently, Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen are recognised by SPI as
> > the current authoritative decision makers and SPI liaisons for OpenWRT.
> > Successors will be appointed in accordance with the OpenWRT charter.
>
> How does decision-making work? If one says yes, and one says no, what
> happens? This requires clarification.

Decisions are made according to their internal rules in the charter linked from
the resolution preamble, and Andy or Gregers lets us know about them. They
don't seem to be able to make independent decisions. However, I agree that
their charter could use various clarifications and revisions. I've been meaning
to suggest specific details to them, but none of the problems are serious
enough to further delay approving them.

If we have doubts about what to do in a specific case, we can just delay any
action while we investigate, just like we'd do if Debian's Secretary told us
that a GR overruled a DPL decision but the DPL told us otherwise.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org