Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]

I propose the following resolution for the March meeting:

WHEREAS

1. OpenWRT is a substantial and useful open source project.

2. OpenWRT would like SPI's support and assistance, including taking
donations.

3. OpenWRT is governed by the charter available at
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/NonProfit and which has also been emailed for
archival purposes to the SPI board.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

3. OpenWRT 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://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-08-10-iwj.1

4. Currently, Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen are recognised by SPI as the
current authoritative decision makers and SPI liaisons for OpenWRT. Successors
will be appointed in accordance with the OpenWRT charter.

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

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Jimmy,

1) What was the resolution of potential legal liabilities for OpenWRT?
Not that this means we should reject them, just that we should be informed.

> 4. Currently, Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen are recognised by SPI as the
> current authoritative decision makers and SPI liaisons for OpenWRT. Successors
> will be appointed in accordance with the OpenWRT charter.

How does decision-making work? If one says yes, and one says no, what
happens? This requires clarification.

--Josh

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 1) What was the resolution of potential legal liabilities for OpenWRT?
> Not that this means we should reject them, just that we should be informed.

I think you're confusing this with the Helios Initiative, where we did have
concerns like you mention due to their focus on hardware donations. We resolved
those by getting legal advice, which said that we can go ahead and just need to
pay attention to some procedural and other details that don't affect our
ability to serve their needs. Helios was approved last month. I'm not aware of
any such issues for OpenWRT, and a cursory look over the past emails relating
to them didn't reveal any.

> > 4. Currently, Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen are recognised by SPI as
> > the current authoritative decision makers and SPI liaisons for OpenWRT.
> > Successors will be appointed in accordance with the OpenWRT charter.
>
> How does decision-making work? If one says yes, and one says no, what
> happens? This requires clarification.

Decisions are made according to their internal rules in the charter linked from
the resolution preamble, and Andy or Gregers lets us know about them. They
don't seem to be able to make independent decisions. However, I agree that
their charter could use various clarifications and revisions. I've been meaning
to suggest specific details to them, but none of the problems are serious
enough to further delay approving them.

If we have doubts about what to do in a specific case, we can just delay any
action while we investigate, just like we'd do if Debian's Secretary told us
that a GR overruled a DPL decision but the DPL told us otherwise.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Jimmy,

> Decisions are made according to their internal rules in the charter linked from
> the resolution preamble, and Andy or Gregers lets us know about them. They
> don't seem to be able to make independent decisions. However, I agree that
> their charter could use various clarifications and revisions. I've been meaning
> to suggest specific details to them, but none of the problems are serious
> enough to further delay approving them.

Well, for prior organizations we haven't allowed having more than one
liaison for *any* organization to avoid confusion. Why would OpenWRT be
different? One of the two needs to be the main liaison, and the other
an alternate.

For replacement of the liaisons, their procedure isn't any more muddy
than anyone else's. We can live with it.

> If we have doubts about what to do in a specific case, we can just delay any
> action while we investigate, just like we'd do if Debian's Secretary told us
> that a GR overruled a DPL decision but the DPL told us otherwise.

We don't want to repeat past mistakes with new affiliates.

--Josh

On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:51 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> One of the two needs to be the main liaison, and the other
> an alternate.

I agree.

Bdale

Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project"):
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > How does decision-making work? If one says yes, and one says no, what
> > happens? This requires clarification.
>
> Decisions are made according to their internal rules in the charter
> linked from the resolution preamble, and Andy or Gregers lets us
> know about them.

In that case the draft resolution is incorrect. The charter is the
governing document, not the individual(s). The phrasing
Alice Baker is recognised as the authoratitive decisionmaker
means that the project is currently an autocracy run by Alice Baker.
When the project is not an autocracy, some different form of words
should be used.

In this case, OpenWRT, there is a governing document. It describes
itself as a draft but appears to be the relevant document.

> If we have doubts about what to do in a specific case, we can just delay any
> action while we investigate, just like we'd do if Debian's Secretary told us
> that a GR overruled a DPL decision but the DPL told us otherwise.

If there were a Board Resolution saying that we recognised Steve
McIntyre as the authoritative decisionmaker for Debian then there
would be no basis for the Treasurer to do anything other than
precisely as Steve directs. That's why that isn't the case.

I would suggest the wording below.

Ian.

1. OpenWRT is a substantial and useful open source project.

2. OpenWRT would like SPI's support and assistance, including taking
donations.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

3. OpenWRT 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://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-08-10-iwj.1

4. SPI recognises that OpenWRT is governed by the Charter available at
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/NonProfit, as modified from time to time
via the processes in the Charter itself.

5. SPI understands that Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen have been
appointed according to the Charter by OpenWRT as liaisons to SPI.

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

--

Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 1) What was the resolution of potential legal liabilities for OpenWRT?
> > Not that this means we should reject them, just that we should be informed.
>
> I think you're confusing this with the Helios [...] I'm not aware of
> any such issues for OpenWRT, and a cursory look over the past emails relating
> to them didn't reveal any. [...]

"I will try to coordinate with OpenWRT in a real-time conversation to
find out more of what they want, and will ask our lawyers any questions
necessary to resolve the issue of whether SPI would be suitable for
them." -- Jimmy Kaplowitz, Wed Mar 5 15:47:50 UTC 2008
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2008-March/002499.html

Well, my memory is famously f'd-up, yet I found that within a couple
of minutes. So did Jimmy Kaplowitz successfully coordinate with
OpenWRT and ask our lawyers any questions last year? I think that is
probably what Josh Berkus meant.

Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

Hi MJ,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 03:10:57PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> "I will try to coordinate with OpenWRT in a real-time conversation to
> find out more of what they want, and will ask our lawyers any questions
> necessary to resolve the issue of whether SPI would be suitable for
> them." -- Jimmy Kaplowitz, Wed Mar 5 15:47:50 UTC 2008
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2008-March/002499.html
>
> Well, my memory is famously f'd-up, yet I found that within a couple
> of minutes. So did Jimmy Kaplowitz successfully coordinate with
> OpenWRT and ask our lawyers any questions last year? I think that is
> probably what Josh Berkus meant.

Thanks for digging it up; that email was in a side tangent of a mostly
unrelated thread (and without OpenWRT in the subject line) more than a year ago
when their intentions to join were much much less firm than in recent months,
and with no specific legal issues identified as needing to be resolved. As it
turned out, when they sent their application to the board, they just requested
services that we already provide very commonly, such as donation receipt and
being part of a non-profit. So consulting lawyers wasn't necessary.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Hi Ian,

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 02:09:47PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would suggest the wording below.

Great. I'll adopt it. I'm also going to add one more bit about deciding between
the two liaisons via what Gregers Petersen is calling an "odd case contact", in
case the two main liaisons disagree. This is as a result of discussing that
issue with him just now on IRC.

Revised Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1.iwj.1 (credit where credit is due):

WHEREAS

1. OpenWRT is a substantial and useful open source project.

2. OpenWRT would like SPI's support and assistance, including taking
donations.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

3. OpenWRT 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://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-08-10-iwj.1

4. SPI recognises that OpenWRT is governed by the Charter available at
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/NonProfit, as modified from time to time
via the processes in the Charter itself.

5. SPI understands that Andy Boyett and Gregers Petersen have been
appointed according to the Charter by OpenWRT as liaisons to SPI.

6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the SPI Board
unless each liaison, within that time, has accepted it on behalf of
OpenWRT, agreed with the other liaison on a single willing third person
who will be asked to resolve disagreeing instructions from the two
 liaisons, and communicated that choice to the Board.

7. The third person referred to in paragraph 6 may be replaced under the
same procedure as any other decision belonging to OpenWRT.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]"):
> 6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the SPI Board
> unless each liaison, within that time, has accepted it on behalf of
> OpenWRT, agreed with the other liaison on a single willing third person
> who will be asked to resolve disagreeing instructions from the two
>  liaisons, and communicated that choice to the Board.

I don't think this is the right protocol.

The liason's job is not, when talking to SPI, to _make_ a decision.
It is to _report_ a decision when properly taken.

If the liasons disagree then one or both of them is probably playing
fast and loose. Or at the very least there is a serious
misunderstanding. We should in that case investigate properly - this
would probably involve board members reviewing archives of the OpenWRT
governance mailing list, or whatever.

If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
Debian to provide a third person to distinguish (as if we were some
kind of computational black box). We would review the relevant
documents (ie, the Debian Constitution), and the relevant lists, and
make our own minds up whether the decision was properly taken.

Ian.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 06:37:54PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
> some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
> Debian to provide a third person to distinguish (as if we were some
> kind of computational black box). We would review the relevant
> documents (ie, the Debian Constitution), and the relevant lists, and
> make our own minds up whether the decision was properly taken.

I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI to have to monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they considered the arrangement with Debian to be a mistake which we shouldn't repeat. Can additional people give their thoughts?

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 18:37 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as
> associated project [revised]"):
> > 6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the
> SPI Board
> > unless each liaison, within that time, has accepted it on behalf
> of
> > OpenWRT, agreed with the other liaison on a single willing third
> person
> > who will be asked to resolve disagreeing instructions from the
> two
> > liaisons, and communicated that choice to the Board.
>
> I don't think this is the right protocol.
>
I agree with this. We should have one person that we are accountable to.
That person is accountable to their project. If the project wishes to
have a "backup" liaison that is fine. In fact PostgreSQL.Org has done
that in the past. I was unavailable for a short time so I delegated to
Robert Treat who is the board advisor for PostgreSQL.Org.

>
> If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
> some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
> Debian to provide a third person to distinguish (as if we were some
> kind of computational black box). We would review the relevant
> documents (ie, the Debian Constitution), and the relevant lists, and
> make our own minds up whether the decision was properly taken.

We would? I would expect that the Debian project would deal with its own
internal problem and the governing body of Debian would respond back.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 14:43 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 06:37:54PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
> > some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
> > Debian to provide a third person to distinguish (as if we were some
> > kind of computational black box). We would review the relevant
> > documents (ie, the Debian Constitution), and the relevant lists, and
> > make our own minds up whether the decision was properly taken.
>
> I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI to have to monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they considered the arrangement with Debian to be a mistake which we shouldn't repeat. Can additional people give their thoughts?

I think Jimmy's direction is good here. What goes on inside OpenWRT is
only valid to us in reference to legal actions taken by the project
(such as signing contracts). Other than that we should stay out of their
way.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]"):
> I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI
> to have to monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they
> considered the arrangement with Debian to be a mistake which we
> shouldn't repeat. Can additional people give their thoughts?

This has been an ongoing topic of, shall we say, controversy.

My view is that SPI should of course normally take the liason's word
for it. After all anything else would be impractical. But if there
is a serious suggestion that there is some kind of dispute, we should
do what the project wants us to.

If an associated project's decisionmaking structures are sufficiently
incomprehensible or fractious that this is impossible then we may have
to revisit this but in practice this hasn't been a problem even with
respect to Debian (which is large, has fairly complex structures, and
seems to attract kookery). We have had the odd allegation of
wrongdoing or dispute but nothing that wasn't easily dealt with.

Some other people have said that we should not ever look into a
project's processes because (as I understand the arguments),

1. It's impractical to look into a project's processes in every case.
This is not, I think a valid argument - since I only propose to do so
in cases of dispute.

2. Looking into a project's decisionmaking processes would somehow be
an infringement on the project's right to self-determination. To that
I would respond with the opposite view - that requiring the project to
delegate complete control over financial resources to specific
individuals is precisely an interference with the project's right to
decide for itself how spending decisions should be made.

If I have mischaracterised these positions please forgive me. I'm
doing so to try to clarify and assist the discussion, not to attack
straw men.

Josh Berkus's `Associated Project HOWTO' (of which I only became aware
today) seems to take this latter view.

Ian.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 18:37 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary
> > (or some other credible source) told us something else, we
> > wouldn't expect Debian to provide a third person to distinguish
> > (as if we were some kind of computational black box). We would
> > review the relevant documents (ie, the Debian Constitution), and
> > the relevant lists, and make our own minds up whether the decision
> > was properly taken.
>
> We would? I would expect that the Debian project would deal with its
> own internal problem and the governing body of Debian would respond
> back.

Determining whether the governing body of a project has responded back
requires reviewing the relevant documents and relevant lists, and
making a decision as to whether it has properly responded.

SPI certainly shouldn't be making a decision on behalf of a project.
However, if there is controversy regarding what decision has been
reached by a project that involves action by SPI, SPI needs to make
sure that the action it takes is in accordance with the wishes of the
project.

For example, if a liason is acting contrary to the wishes of a
project, and the project reports that this is the case to SPI and
removes the liason, but the liason reports that it is not the case and
that the liason has not actually been removed, SPI has to resolve the
situtation by figuring out what the wishes of the project actually
are. This requires examining the relevant documents and the decision
process.

I believe that the cases of this happening should be very
extraordinary, but they certainly can happen, and the agreement
between the project and SPI should account for them.

Don Armstrong

--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
-- Bill Vaughan

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Jimmy,

> I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI to have to monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they considered the arrangement with Debian to be a mistake which we shouldn't repeat. Can additional people give their thoughts?

Actually, that's not what I'm personally worried about. What I'm
worried about is:

-- If Andy says "Pay $628 for travel expenses to Joe Speaker", do we
have to check with Gregers before paying? Or Not?

-- What if Gregers says, "No, don't pay that."? What if it happens
after we've already cut the check?

-- If both Andy and Gregers attend a board meeting, and one supports a
measure and the other doesn't, what should we think the position of
OpenWRT on the measure is?

-- Why should OpenWRT have two people speaking for it at a Board meeting
when other projects have only one (excepting board members, of course)?
If one one is going to speak at a time, why designate them both as
liaison?

In other words, I'm not worried about a crisis of representation, but
rather about day-to-day confusion about what the OpenWRT project
actually wants. Having two liaisons at the same time is just begging
for that kind of confusion. Have the guys take alternate months or
something, I don't care, but let's not have two at the same time.

I also think that with two liaisons, Andy and Gregers each are going to
think more about their own opinions and less about representing their
projects.

--Josh

Josh Berkus writes;
> Actually, that's not what I'm personally worried about. What I'm
> worried about is:

These are the right questions, I think. Given what I'm about to say
I've changed the names to Alice and Bob of the FreePLNK project, to
make it clearly hypothetical.

> -- If Alice says "Pay $628 for travel expenses to Joe Speaker", do we
> have to check with Bob before paying? Or Not?

As I say, I think the liason's role is to communicate a decision
properly made. So Alice should say `and this has been approved by
Bob' or something.

> -- What if Bob says, "No, don't pay that."?

If Alice said `... and this has been approved by Bob' then this
means either that Alice was shading the truth, or that some new
information has come to light meaning that they've changed their mind.

I would expect that if Alice had been dishonest Bob would leave us in
no doubt about that. In which case we make sure that the whole
FreePLNK project knows about this dispute, and in the meantime try to
preserve the status quo until the shitstorm has subsided and a clear
conclusion has emerged. Obviously we don't expect this to happen very
often.

But more likely is that this just means that they've changed their
minds so we should take Bob's message as a request to belay the
earlier instruction.

> What if it happens after we've already cut the check?

That might be tough luck for FreePLNK. In general for this reason I
would expect that for large sums for previously-unforeseen purposes we
would be a little more careful.

> -- If both Alice and Bob attend a board meeting, and one supports a
> measure and the other doesn't, what should we think the position of
> FreePLNK on the measure is?

Alice and Bob should each represent the position of FreePLNK, rather
than their personal views. If they don't agree on that then we should
tell them to go away and come back when the dispute is sorted out.

Our lists and meetings are not the appropriate place for them to
discuss their disagreements both because we don't want to have to get
involved and because the FreePLNK project _should_ be involved, via
their own fora.

> -- Why should FreePLNK have two people speaking for it at a Board meeting
> when other projects have only one (excepting board members, of course)?
> If one one is going to speak at a time, why designate them both as
> liaison?

One very good reason two have two people might be so that one of them
can act when the other is unavailable. Or to have one of them `watch
over the shoulder' of the other. Certainly in all of the situations
we've described I would expect all of the instructions from Alice to
be CCd to Bob and vice versa.

> In other words, I'm not worried about a crisis of representation, but
> rather about day-to-day confusion about what the FreePLNK project
> actually wants. Having two liaisons at the same time is just begging
> for that kind of confusion. Have the guys take alternate months or
> something, I don't care, but let's not have two at the same time.

I don't think this is a problem in practice. We need to be perfectly
clear that Alice and Bob need to represent to us the actual
already-decided position of FreePLNK. The liason's job is
communication, after all.

> I also think that with two liaisons, Alice and Bob each are going to
> think more about their own opinions and less about representing their
> projects.

That surely is a matter for the FreePLNK project to consider.

Ian.

Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]"):
> For example, if a liason is acting contrary to the wishes of a
> project, and the project reports that this is the case to SPI and
> removes the liason, but the liason reports that it is not the case and
> that the liason has not actually been removed, SPI has to resolve the
> situtation by figuring out what the wishes of the project actually
> are. This requires examining the relevant documents and the decision
> process.

Exactly.

My point is that we should not say that `Carla is recognised by SPI
the authoritative decisionmaker for the OpenWarfare project' unless we
really mean that OpenWarfare is an autocracy with Carla in charge.

Because if we say that `Carla is the authoritative decisionmaker for
OpenWarfare' then we are saying that when half a dozen contributors to
OpenWarfare email us to point out that she's gone off on a bender, we
will honour her decisions (regarding assets held for OpenWarfare)
rather than theirs. After all that's what `authoritative
decisionmaker' means. Carla's opponents will have to start their own
fork.

Whereas if we say `we recognise the OpenWarfare Founding Declaration
(attached) as the governing instrument for OpenWarfare and Carla will
be our liason', then when David, Elspeth, Fred et al email us to tell
us Carla has gone mad, we will look at the document and the mailing
lists and so forth (or whatever) to decide who to believe.

> I believe that the cases of this happening should be very
> extraordinary, but they certainly can happen, and the agreement
> between the project and SPI should account for them.

Absolutely.

As an aside:

Note that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with autocracy as a
governance model for a free software project. For a small project -
where those who might disagree with the autocrat can easily fork (thus
establishing a competing governance as well as a competing codebase) -
it can often be very efficient and straightforward.

When a project becomes large enough that it is very difficult to fork
(or perhaps it is difficult to fork for other reasons), it is more
important that users and developers can effectively exercise their
freedoms _within_ the project's governance structures rather than just
by opting out.

Ian.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 04:51:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Well, for prior organizations we haven't allowed having more than one
> liaison for *any* organization to avoid confusion. Why would OpenWRT be
> different? One of the two needs to be the main liaison, and the other
> an alternate.

I realize there's a chance you'll consider this another past mistake which
shouldn't be repeated, but less than 2 years ago we allowed OpenVAS to have
three "authorititive [sic] decisionmakers" according to a similar constitution
to OpenWRT's charter which also specifies mostly consensus-based
decisionmaking.

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2007-06-18-iwj.2.html/

This is not unprecedented, in other words. In the past, we have just followed
instructions from any one of the OpenVAS people, if I remember right, except
regarding "change control" (which I assume to mean changing the liaisons) which
required 2 out of the 3 to agree. Anyone who remembers otherwise, please say
so.

My expectation is that for OpenWRT we'd just follow instructions from either
Gregers or Andy, which under their rules would have to already result from
consensus within the OpenWRT developer community, and do our best to keep both
of them in the loop (e.g. via email CCs). If one of them says "that's not what
OpenWRT decided!" about an instruction from the other before the relevant
action has been taken, then we have a clear and simple way to deal with that:
wait until the discrepancy is resolved by the third person named in my revised
resolution.

As others have said, if differing stories between the two liaisons become a
recurring issue, then we'll deal with it like the rational and intelligent
human beings which we all are; we're not automata and can use human judgment as
needed.

It's certainly not a perfect solution, but they seem to want more than one
liaison, possibly for cases where one of them is unavailable. In any case, to
whatever extent it's flawed, I think it's still sufficiently workable to
approve today, and then tweak later if a better solution arises that's
acceptable to SPI and OpenWRT.

Now I'm going to update the copy of my resolution in the agenda to include the
revisions I already posted to this list, as well as Michael Schultheiss's
treasurer's report.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Jimmy,

> It's certainly not a perfect solution, but they seem to want more than one
> liaison, possibly for cases where one of them is unavailable. In any case, to
> whatever extent it's flawed, I think it's still sufficiently workable to
> approve today, and then tweak later if a better solution arises that's
> acceptable to SPI and OpenWRT.

So, what's the line we draw? 2 liaisons? 3? A dozen? 50?

If we're allowing any number of liaisons, I'd like to change
PostgreSQL's charter so we can have 3.

Can we hear from someone at OpenWRT about this?

Given that SPI will just continue to add affiliates over time, I
personally think that allowing *any* organization to have more than one
authoritative liaison is a mistake. It doesn't scale for the number of
projects SPI needs to support. I'm not a board member, I don't get a
vote on this, but that's my opinion.

--Josh Berkus

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 10:51 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jimmy,

> Given that SPI will just continue to add affiliates over time, I
> personally think that allowing *any* organization to have more than one
> authoritative liaison is a mistake. It doesn't scale for the number of
> projects SPI needs to support. I'm not a board member, I don't get a
> vote on this, but that's my opinion.
>

Well as it stands I think the resolution is flawed. We can not have more
than one liaison. It needs to be reworded in a way that the liaison has
delegation authority or something if they want a backup, but a "pair" of
equals is a bad idea.

Joshua D. Drake

> --Josh Berkus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:09:52AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well as it stands I think the resolution is flawed. We can not have more
> than one liaison. It needs to be reworded in a way that the liaison has
> delegation authority or something if they want a backup, but a "pair" of
> equals is a bad idea.

I must thank Ian Jackson for actually taking the time to submit proposed
alternative wording to effectuate his suggestions, and with plenty of time to
discuss his submission before the meeting. I wish he wasn't the only one.

That said, I got the strong impression that OpenWRT wanted to have two equals
for some reason. We'll see what they say during the meeting; I have zero doubt
they will be asked about that. If the OpenWRT people can actually identify one
of Gregers and Andy who should be the sole liaison and do so in a way that
complies with the OpenWRT charter, then I'll be fine with that change.

If not, as I have previously stated, I think the current resolution is flawed
but sufficiently workable to approve now, and then tweak later if a better
solution agreeable to both SPI and OpenWRT presents itself. Approving OpenWRT
has already been delayed a long time and I don't consider this a showstopper
flaw, especially since we're only protecting against the very unlikely case
that both liaisons (neither of whom has independent decisionmaking authority)
disagree about what decision the OpenWRT developer body has already made AND
the third person we are supposed to contact doesn't give us a credible answer
AND the board of SPI fails to act like the responsible, mostly rational adults
we are.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:51:44AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Given that SPI will just continue to add affiliates over time, I
> personally think that allowing *any* organization to have more than one
> authoritative liaison is a mistake. It doesn't scale for the number of
> projects SPI needs to support. I'm not a board member, I don't get a
> vote on this, but that's my opinion.

Can I ask what the reasons are that you've changed your opinion on this since
the July 6th, 2007 meeting when you did have a vote as a board member and voted
to approve OpenVAS with its three authoritative decisionmakers?

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meeting-minutes/2007/board-meeting-july-6th-2007.html/

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Jimmy,

> Can I ask what the reasons are that you've changed your opinion on this since
> the July 6th, 2007 meeting when you did have a vote as a board member and voted
> to approve OpenVAS with its three authoritative decisionmakers?

I didn't. I'll have to admit that, because we were *restoring*
OpenVAS's membership and not accepting them as a new member (OpenVAS was
a member before I joined SPI) I didn't pay attention to what their
decision-making mechanism was. If I had, I would have objected then as
well.

The other thing which has changed is adding a lot more member
organizations, and a higher level of interest in joining SPI in general.
In mid-2007 I doubt I was thinking of the day when SPI has 150 member
organizations; now, I think we'd *better* think of that day, since we've
been adding a new member every month.

--Josh

Resolution 2009-04-01.ba.1: Liaison superseded

WHEREAS

1. "liaison" is a French word meaning a link with three (3) consecutive
vowels.

2. The mispelling "liason" does not exist in English, and is irritating to
French readers.

3. Some SPI officers are unable to spell "liaison" properly.

4. The Webster 1913 dictionnary define a "liaison" as an illicit sexual
relation, which seldom describes accurately the nature of the relation
between SPI and associate projects.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

5. The word "liaison" will not be used in SPI resolutions and corresponding
discussions.

6. Instead the word "link" will be substitued wherever "liaison" was used.

7. The SPI mail-server will be changed to automatically bounce message
constaining the mispelling "liason".

8. French subscribers of SPI mailing-lists are advised to find another
subjet of rant for next year.

Cheers,
Bill.

Bill,

On the off-chance that this is not an April Fools resolution, as a French
speaking member of SPI's board, I disagree with everything except
preambles 1, 2, and 3.

The dictionary defines liaison as:

3. Specifically: A process of communication between parts of
an organization or between two organizations acting
together for a common purpose.
[PJC]

4. Hence: A person whose function it is to maintain such
communication.
[PJC]

That's exactly what we use liaisons for. I can't speak for anyone's
liaisons with our liaisons, but our liaisons liaise perfectly well.

- -
David "cdlu" Graham - cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca
Guelph, Ontario - http://www.cdlu.net/

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:

> Resolution 2009-04-01.ba.1: Liaison superseded
>
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. "liaison" is a French word meaning a link with three (3) consecutive
> vowels.
>
> 2. The mispelling "liason" does not exist in English, and is irritating to
> French readers.
>
> 3. Some SPI officers are unable to spell "liaison" properly.
>
> 4. The Webster 1913 dictionnary define a "liaison" as an illicit sexual
> relation, which seldom describes accurately the nature of the relation
> between SPI and associate projects.
>
> THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT
>
> 5. The word "liaison" will not be used in SPI resolutions and corresponding
> discussions.
>
> 6. Instead the word "link" will be substitued wherever "liaison" was used.
>
> 7. The SPI mail-server will be changed to automatically bounce message
> constaining the mispelling "liason".
>
> 8. French subscribers of SPI mailing-lists are advised to find another
> subjet of rant for next year.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill.
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:07:26PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 8. French subscribers of SPI mailing-lists are advised to find another
> subjet of rant for next year.

Can we anglophones rant instead about how you misspelled "subject"? :-)

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org