| From: | Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Cock <p(dot)j(dot)a(dot)cock(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OBF as associated project, formal resolution |
| Date: | 2012-10-01 15:25:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20585.46557.578720.958304@chiark.greenend.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
Peter Cock writes ("Re: OBF as associated project, formal resolution"):
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Ian Jackson
> <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > Is Hilmar Lapp really the autocrat for this project ? Or should we
> > have something more like the text we have for Debian ? Or
> > something in between ?
...
> I'm not sure how you are using the term autocrat, but Hilmer Lapp
> is the current OBF president if that's what you are asking:
> http://www.open-bio.org/wiki/Board
An autocrat is a fancy word for a dictator. Small projects are
typically run by the original author as an autocrat. It seems
unlikely that something with a Board of Directors is an autocracy :-).
The resolution should presumably say something about SPI recognising
the OBF board as the authoritative decisionmakers. Some suitable text
can probably be ripped out of the Debian resolution and trimmed to
fit.
Debian's arrangements are more complicated but the Debian resolution
is probably a better template than much smaller projects which really
are autocracies. The Debian template mentions the various edge cases
too.
Ian.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Brockway | 2012-10-01 16:21:47 | Re: OBF as associated project, formal resolution |
| Previous Message | Peter Cock | 2012-10-01 14:57:49 | Re: OBF as associated project, formal resolution |