Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project"):
> Stefano Sabatini writes ("Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project"):
> > In data Friday 2012-05-25 08:29:11 +1000, Robert Brockway ha scritto:
> > Yes I'm not an autocrat ;-). That said from my reading of the SPI
> > associated project HOWTO i see no mention that the liaison must
> > coincide with the project leader/maintainer/BDFL/whatever.
>
> Yes, that's fine.
>
> My problem is that the draft SPI resolution says:
>
> 4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision
> maker and SPI liaison for FFmpeg. [...]
>
> "Authoritative decisionmaker" is a mealy-mouthed way of saying
> "autocrat". I should know: I wrote that wording for the benefit of a
> project which was in fact run as an autocracy. And if you are in any
> doubt, please do consult a dictionary. "The authoritative
> decisionmaker for FFmpeg" is the person whose decisions about FFmpeg
> are in themselves authoritative - ie, the autocrat. Which FFmpeg
> doesn't have.

I have just seen, following your reference to the
`associated-project-howto', that that document contains the wording
`authoritative decisionmaker' which I am objecting to.

Who wrote the associated-project-howto and how can we get this fixed ?

At the moment it says:

4. [Liaison] is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
and SPI liaison for [project]. Successors will be appointed
[describe method of selection or election].

IMO it should say:

4. [Liason] will be the initial liason to SPI from [project]
and is responsible in the first instance for communicating the
wishes of [project] to SPI.

[SPI understands that decisions in [project] are made according
to [process].]
[or something similar]

In case of dispute SPI will honour those decisions in accordance
with the SPI Framework.

or something like that.

Ian.