Re: GNUstep project support problem

Well, I talked to the FSF again just to make sure they were OK with
this, and although they previously told me they would not handle small
donations, RMS came back and said they would now do this, and that he
preferred I work with the FSF (I imagine you know how stubborn he can
be).

Anyway, I'd still like to move forward with the SPI proposal, as I
think you have a good model, and we already have GNUstep members as
active contributors with SPI. I just thought you would want to know
about this new wrinkle, and to let you know I would completely
understand if you didn't want GNUstep working with both SPI and the FSF
at the same time (FSF has, in addition, placed a number of additional
stipulations on us, which at first glance don't seem that burdensome,
but I don't think they have worked out how they will handle things like
this yet).

Adam Fedor writes ("GNUstep project support problem"):
> Well, I talked to the FSF again just to make sure they were OK with
> this, and although they previously told me they would not handle small
> donations, RMS came back and said they would now do this, and that he
> preferred I work with the FSF (I imagine you know how stubborn he can
> be).

I see. It's good that the FSF have decided to do this. There's no
harm, and some merit, in having more than one legal organisation do
it.

> Anyway, I'd still like to move forward with the SPI proposal, as I
> think you have a good model, and we already have GNUstep members as
> active contributors with SPI. I just thought you would want to know
> about this new wrinkle, and to let you know I would completely
> understand if you didn't want GNUstep working with both SPI and the FSF
> at the same time (FSF has, in addition, placed a number of additional
> stipulations on us, which at first glance don't seem that burdensome,
> but I don't think they have worked out how they will handle things like
> this yet).

Right.

I'm still happy to go forward. I don't see any reason why we
shouldn't be willing to work with you to take donations regardless of
whether the FSF do so. SPI-associated projects with wide
international participation frequently associate also with other
organisations besides SPI, and that doesn't seem to cause trouble. I
don't see why this should be any different.

There is some risk of upsetting the FSF, I suppose. How much of a
hurry are you in ? If you are willing to wait another month it might
be worthwhile taking that time for us to talk to the FSF, at least so
that we can smooth over any ruffled features.

Thanks,
Ian.

Adam -- the board meeting is tomorrow at 19:00 UTC in #spi on
irc.spi-inc.org (irc.oftc.net) if you'd like to come.

> I see. It's good that the FSF have decided to do this. There's no
> harm, and some merit, in having more than one legal organisation do
> it.

I'm with Ian on this in that I see no problem in GNUstep being part of
both FSF and SPI. The two organisations are not working against eachother
and there should be no trouble caused by such a relationship.

Ian, do you have a final copy of the resolution for voting on by any
chance?

> There is some risk of upsetting the FSF, I suppose. How much of a
> hurry are you in ? If you are willing to wait another month it might
> be worthwhile taking that time for us to talk to the FSF, at least so
> that we can smooth over any ruffled features.

I don't see any particular need to delay this on account of FSF.

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

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, David Graham - SPI Secretary wrote:
> I'm with Ian on this in that I see no problem in GNUstep being part of
> both FSF and SPI. The two organisations are not working against eachother
> and there should be no trouble caused by such a relationship.

You're right about that, but I also think that, if it's OK with GNUstep,
to put this on hold for a month so we can amicably discuss it with the
FSF, and give the Gnustep folks a chance to hash out what exactly the
FSF's stipulations are and what impact it may have on them. I don't
have a problem with Gnustep being a SPI project now and leaving later
if/when FSF gets set up, but if FSF is very close to having what they
need, and their preference is FSF, might as well figure out what is
going on there.

> > There is some risk of upsetting the FSF, I suppose. How much of a
> > hurry are you in ? If you are willing to wait another month it might
> > be worthwhile taking that time for us to talk to the FSF, at least so
> > that we can smooth over any ruffled features.
>
> I don't see any particular need to delay this on account of FSF.

Well, let's just say that they can be a little prickly sometimes. I
think Ian is wise to suggest delaying this a bit so we can keep them in
the loop and informed about what everyone's intentions are.

-- John

On Nov 8, 2004, at 8:21 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I'm still happy to go forward. I don't see any reason why we
> shouldn't be willing to work with you to take donations regardless of
> whether the FSF do so. SPI-associated projects with wide
> international participation frequently associate also with other
> organisations besides SPI, and that doesn't seem to cause trouble. I
> don't see why this should be any different.
>
> There is some risk of upsetting the FSF, I suppose. How much of a
> hurry are you in ? If you are willing to wait another month it might
> be worthwhile taking that time for us to talk to the FSF, at least so
> that we can smooth over any ruffled features.
>

Great. I'm in no hurry, so it might be good to delay a little.

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> Ian, do you have a final copy of the resolution for voting on by any
> chance?

I'll write one up when we hear from Adam whether he's happy to wait.

> [Ian Jackson:]
> > There is some risk of upsetting the FSF, I suppose. How much of a
> > hurry are you in ? If you are willing to wait another month it might
> > be worthwhile taking that time for us to talk to the FSF, at least so
> > that we can smooth over any ruffled features.
>
> I don't see any particular need to delay this on account of FSF.

Good relations with the FSF are important to us. I think we should
avoid treading on their toes if we it's not too much trouble to avoid
it !

Ian.

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> > Ian, do you have a final copy of the resolution for voting on by any
> > chance?
>
> I'll write one up when we hear from Adam whether he's happy to wait.

I realised that this was silly. We should have this resolution text
ready in any case. Note, though, that if Adam is happy to defer until
we've talked to the FSF I would prefer to do that.

Proposed Resolution 2004-11-08.iwj.1

WHEREAS

1. GNUstep is a substantial and significant Free Software project.

2. The GNUstep developers would like SPI to take donations for
purposes related to GNUstep.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

3. GNUstep is formally invited to become an SPI Associated Project,
according to the SPI Framework for Associated Projects,
SPI Resolution 1998-11-16.iwj.1-amended-2004-08-10.iwj.1,
a copy of which can be found at
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000091.html

4. The GNUstep maintainer, Adam Fedor, is recognised by SPI as the
current authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.

5. This invitation will lapse, if not accepted, 60 days after it
is approved by the SPI Board.

Ian.

On Nov 8, 2004, at 10:01 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
>> David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support
>> problem"):
>>> Ian, do you have a final copy of the resolution for voting on by any
>>> chance?
>>
>> I'll write one up when we hear from Adam whether he's happy to wait.
>
> I realised that this was silly. We should have this resolution text
> ready in any case. Note, though, that if Adam is happy to defer until
> we've talked to the FSF I would prefer to do that.
>

I did reply to the general list that I was happy to wait, perhaps you
haven't received that yet.

> Proposed Resolution 2004-11-08.iwj.1
>
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. GNUstep is a substantial and significant Free Software project.
>
> 2. The GNUstep developers would like SPI to take donations for
> purposes related to GNUstep.
>
> THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT
>
> 3. GNUstep is formally invited to become an SPI Associated Project,
> according to the SPI Framework for Associated Projects,
> SPI Resolution 1998-11-16.iwj.1-amended-2004-08-10.iwj.1,
> a copy of which can be found at
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000091.html
>
> 4. The GNUstep maintainer, Adam Fedor, is recognised by SPI as the
> current authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.
>
> 5. This invitation will lapse, if not accepted, 60 days after it
> is approved by the SPI Board.
>
>

This sounds good to me.

Adam Fedor writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> [...] I'm in no hurry, so it might be good to delay a little.

OK. Can you tell me who you were dealing with at the FSF, or shall I
just mail gnu(at)gnu(dot)org ? (I'm already a GNU maintainer for a couple of
other programs, so I might make a good go-between for the SPI Board ...)

Ian.

Adam Fedor writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> I did reply to the general list that I was happy to wait, perhaps you
> haven't received that yet.

Your reply arrived while I was writing my last mail :-).

> > Proposed Resolution 2004-11-08.iwj.1

So, I withdraw that.

Thanks,
Ian.

On Nov 8, 2004, at 10:16 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Adam Fedor writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
>> [...] I'm in no hurry, so it might be good to delay a little.
>
> OK. Can you tell me who you were dealing with at the FSF, or shall I
> just mail gnu(at)gnu(dot)org ? (I'm already a GNU maintainer for a couple of
> other programs, so I might make a good go-between for the SPI Board
> ...)
>
> Ian.

Well, I've been talking to Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn(at)fsf(dot)org).

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:16:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Fedor writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> > [...] I'm in no hurry, so it might be good to delay a little.
>
> OK. Can you tell me who you were dealing with at the FSF, or shall I
> just mail gnu(at)gnu(dot)org ? (I'm already a GNU maintainer for a couple of
> other programs, so I might make a good go-between for the SPI Board ...)

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,
John

John Goerzen writes ("Re: GNUstep project support problem"):
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:16:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [...] (I'm already a GNU maintainer for a couple of
> > other programs, so I might make a good go-between for the SPI Board ...)
>
> Sounds good to me.

I've mailed Bradley Kuhn, CC Adam and the SPI board. (It seemed
better to deal with this slightly sensitive subject in private, at
least for now.)

Ian.

John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, David Graham - SPI Secretary wrote:
> > I'm with Ian on this in that I see no problem in GNUstep being part of
> > both FSF and SPI. The two organisations are not working against eachother
> > and there should be no trouble caused by such a relationship.
>
> You're right about that, but I also think that, if it's OK with GNUstep,
> to put this on hold for a month so we can amicably discuss it with the
> FSF, and give the Gnustep folks a chance to hash out what exactly the
> FSF's stipulations are and what impact it may have on them. I don't
> have a problem with Gnustep being a SPI project now and leaving later
> if/when FSF gets set up, but if FSF is very close to having what they
> need, and their preference is FSF, might as well figure out what is
> going on there.

I agree, additionally, I guess that the GNUStep people need to sort out
what they want to gain from the FSF and what to gain from SPI, and then
decide whether it makes sense for them to utilise both organisation.
It's often better not to rush things.

Regards,

Joey

--
GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
-- The GNU Manifesto