Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:

> I think very few SPI associated projects have the ultimate decisionmaking
> authority in the hands of the rough consensus of a mailing list. Most have
> something more formal than that, which might explain why it's an uncommon
> issue. Or, yes, unthinking reuse of previous templates is another possible
> explanation. :-)

I actually expected the reference to the mailing list in the resolution to
be raised as a concern if anything was going to be.

I thought about this for a while and reviewed existing resolutions before
posting resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 . I noted that resolution
2011-08-10.bg.2 (Arch Linux as associated project) places the ability to
appoint the project liaison in the hands of "a simple majority of existing
Arch Linux developers" if a sitting liaison does not appoint their own
successor.

I concluded that using a mailing list for this purpose is not such a large
departure from existing practice.

As noted in an earlier post, I was also aware that resolution
2004-08-10.iwj.1 (Associated Project Framework) allows SPI to act if a
project's internal organization or procedures are unclear or disputed.

Taking all of this in to account, I concluded I was happy to post the
proposal.

Cheers,

Rob

--
Director, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Email: robert(at)spi-inc(dot)org Linux counter ID #16440
IRC: Solver (OFTC & Freenode)
Web: http://www.spi-inc.org
Free and Open Source: The revolution that quietly changed the world