Re: Resolution The Open MPI Project as an associated project

On 10/10/2016 11:10 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 06:54 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
>> On 10/09/2016 11:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>>> This was meant to go into September meeting (originally proposed). At
>>> that point, a clause suggesting what to do if the project becomes
>>> defunct was requested. I am not expecting for Open MPI to become defunct
>>> anytime soon, this is mostly guidance for the future SPI board. It is
>>> similar in spirit how other projects left SPI - by transferring all
>>> outstanding assets to a different or a new US 501(c)(3) charity.
>>
>> I'm going to object to putting this on tommorrow's agenda.
>>
>> I don't have any specific objections to the content of the proposal, but
>> 16 hours is WAY insufficient discussion time for an Associated project
>> proposal.
>>
>> We depend on the members to raise issues around legal entanglements,
>> traps and other "unknown unknowns" with new projects. Giving members
>> less than a day's notice is in no way adequate for this.
>
> OpenMPI has been in discussions with the board since June.

But not shared with spi-private or spi-general.

The reason why the board voted on the "wait a week" rule 3 or 4 years
ago (as soon as I find the resolution, I'll link it) was because of an
incident in which SPI almost accepted a project, only to have an SPI
member bring up that the project applying was currently being sued, and
SPI would be taking on those legal expenses (was some kind of IoT
project).

The whole point of announcing prospective projects to the membership is
to crowd-source information about them. But you can't do that in less
than 24 hours.

--Josh Berkus