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

Robert Brockway <robert(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:

> Hi all. I personally feel that the associated-project-howto could be
> made clearer. I also read a few threads on various forums where some
> people had expressed confusion over certain aspects of how SPI works,
> even after reading the associated-project-howto.
>
> I've written a new version which I'm submitting here for review. It can
> be found here:
>
> http://www.spi-inc.org/drafts/associated-project-howto/
>
> The changes I've made include:
>
> * Rewritting the document to be in the 3rd person
> * Rewritting certain sections to be clearer
> * Putting information on services offered at the top[1]
> * Rearranging large sections to be consistent with the new structure
> * Adding more headers to stop it easier to find a relevant section.
>
> [1] Projects considering applying for associated project status will
> want to answer 'why' before they answer 'how'.
>
> I stress this is solely my work and is not endorsed by the SPI board. I
> hope that this (or something close to it) meets with the approval of the
> contributing members and the board.

I agree that the draft is an improvement, thanks for working on this.

1) There seems to be a word missing ("be"?):

| Refunds for legitimate project expenses will made from
| funds earmarked for an associated project with the consent
| of the project liaison.

2) It's in the original as well, but I'm a bit puzzled by the "major" in:

| All major contributors to the project are eligible for SPI contributing membership,

According to http://www.spi-inc.org/membership/guidelines/
being active in an associated project should suffice.

3) Maybe the sentence:

| In the future, there will be an online reporting interface
| which will allow the liaison to check balances at any time.

should be dropped, or is anyone actually working on this?

4) I think it would be worth mentioning that SPI has partner
organizations that can collect tax-deducible donations outside
the US. At least for Privoxy this was an important factor,
even though the process should probably be streamlined
and documented more clearly.

Fabian