Re: SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 20:00 UTC

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell writes ("SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 20:00 UTC"):
> > 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)

I think you mean 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)
rather than 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated
project)

>
> Can I bring to the attention of the Board my objection to the wording
> of clause 4 of this resolution ?
>
> I propose this alternative (this is my earlier text amended along the
> lines suggested by Stefano Sabatini):
>
> 4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the current liason for
> FFmpeg. SPI expects him to inform us of decisions relating to SPI
> made by the FFmpeg project, and we will honour his requests in
> accordance with the Framework for Associated Projects.
>
> However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance
> structure. Therefore in case of dispute, SPI will follow what
> appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus view of the
> FFmpeg project's direct contributors.
>
> Changes since my previous version are to remove `significant' in front
> of `dispute' and to change `committers' to `direct contributors'. I
> respectfully submit that the Board should approve this text rather
> than the proposal in 2012-05-17.mcs.1.
>
> In the email discussion no-one seems to have suggested that
> "authoritative decisionmaker" _doesn't_ mean what I say it does.
>
> The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always
> done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100%
> attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done
> wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now.

Seems reasonable to me.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org