Re: GNUstep project support

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Isn't this covered by the Advisor resolution, which makes the project
> > responsible for assigning its own representative, and thus moot this
> > point?
>
> Err, but we have to say who we have agreed is `the project'. I mean,
> what if GWB comes along tomorrow and says `I, being the chief of the
> GNUstep project, appoint myself to be the new representative for
> GNUstep' ? Obviously that's daft, because Adam would have to do it,
> but there's nothing besides my para 4 that would contradict it.

Right right, the framework resolution says we acknowledge who we see as
responsible.

Paragraph 4 of this resolution could perhaps thus read:

'4. The GNUstep maintainer, at the time of the passing of this resolution
is Adam Fedor. He will serve as the project's representative until SPI is
informed otherwise by the GNUstep project.'

Succession isn't really an issue here: it's the project's job (Adam's or
otherwise) to name the advisor, who serves as the representative, as per
2004-08-10.iwj.dbg.3. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a situation where
Adam disappears, or names a successor who themselves cannot name their
successor, and leaves us hanging, so leaving the project as a whole
responsible for assigning a representative I believe is safer.

To be clear, I'm in no way objecting to GNUstep joining SPI. I want only
to ensure our resolutions are sensible and don't cause us future troubles
that could have been avoided.

---
David Graham, SPI Secretary
cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org D5F45889