Re: [Spi-private] Bruce's Platform

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If you are elected and your attendance does not improve, can we expect
> you to resign?
>
OK. Campaign promise.
> The board does not necessarily have representation from all member
> organisations. I know that Postgresql has funding from bodies who would
> not necessarily be happy with being associated with an anti-software
> patent organisation. How would you deal with member organisations that
> hold different political stances to you?
>
SPI has contributing members, and they vote. Funding sponsors don't
vote. I am absolutely sure how SPI's contributing members would vote on
this issue, and pretty sure how Postgresql's would vote too. Postgresql
is a project that is particularly threatened by software patenting.

> "* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of the
> Internet"
>
I went over the by-law missions in another email. A number of them fit.
> I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
> remit.
>
Let's not call it lobbying. Some of that can't be done within a 501(c)3,
and some can. It's education.
> I'm not sure that that's obvious. Does having multiple groups arguing
> the same general point not risk the fundamental argument being lost
> amongst the less important differences?
Actually, it creates a constituency. One of the current problems of EFF
is that they are sometimes seen as alone in this.
> I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines Debian's role with respect to SPI.
I don't know why that would be insulting. The social contract doesn't
have to define anything about SPI, it defines a good mission for Debian.
> Given the number of times you've resigned for Debian
Once? Please stop beating dead horses of 1998.
> It clearly insinuated that due to John's criticism of you, you felt that you couldn't trust him to run an election.
It was improper process for an election. Especially the posting on
spi-general before my platform was posted there. I did not write
anything about trust.

> Of course, changing the by-laws would require convincing people that
> mail was a better alternative to IRC.
Our meetings are far outside of the by-laws right now. Read article 4.
But I would not have to change the by-laws to hold most meetings over email.
> It's not obvious that you'd win.
> If you didn't, and if meetings continued to be held on IRC, what would
> your response be?
>
Attend them.

Thanks

Bruce