GNUstep project support

The GNUstep project is interested in receiving support from SPI. In
this mail, I want to discuss a little about GNUstep for those who are
not familiar with it as well as what we would like from SPI.

GNUstep originally started out as an implementation of the OpenStep
specification from NeXT, inc. (Now Apple, Inc.). OpenStep is a
high-quality object-oriented development environment. We've also
implemented other useful parts of a developer environment, including a
graphical interface builder and project management application, as
well as additions to the specifications such as are in the Cocoa (Mac
OS X) API. Many user applications, such as GNUMail, GWorkspace, and
Cenon have been written as well. The well thought-out design of the
framework, as well as it's coupling with Objective-C, means that the
framework has not changed substantially in over 10 years, yet it still
runs some of the most advanced applications in existence today on many
platforms (Mac OS X, Windows, GNU/Linux, BSD systems, Solaris, etc).

While GNUstep is a fairly large project, with 10-20 active developers
and perhaps hundreds or more individuals and corporations that use
GNUstep, it is not large enough to attract all the help we need. Yet
our needs are growing each day. Our proposed solution is to begin
accepting donations so that we can pay for some of the things that we
can't get people to give us. Current ideas include a new icon set, a
server-farm for testing and packaging, and better documentation.

We would like SPI to handle the acceptance and disbursement of
donations. Disbursement of donations would be made at the request of
the GNUstep maintainer (me) or possibly in the future, some GNUstep
development committee.

Full discloser:

Although GNUstep is a clean and independent implementation of OpenStep
and Cocoa APIs, there is a possibility that Apple, Inc., could sue us
or demand cease and desist of our work. However, they seem to be more
interested in works that copy their 'Aqua' look and other
look-and-feel aspects or their system. Also, in more than 10 years of
GNUstep's existence, they have not approached us at all about this
issue. As well, since the FSF handles our copyright, presumably they
would be responsible for handling these issues, not SPI.

If you have any other questions, please contact me, or see
www.gnustep.org for more information. Thanks.

Adam Fedor writes ("GNUstep project support"):
> We would like SPI to handle the acceptance and disbursement of
> donations. Disbursement of donations would be made at the request of
> the GNUstep maintainer (me) or possibly in the future, some GNUstep
> development committee.

Here's a resolution for the meeting:

Proposed Resolution 2004-11-04.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.

4. The GNUstep Maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, will be authorised
to represent and act for GNUstep, with respect to SPI, and to
nominate successors.

5. This invitation will lapse, if not accepted, on 2005-01-03.

FURTHERMORE, WHEREAS

6. The current text of the Framework for Associated Projects is not
available on the SPI website Resolutions section, nor are the
minutes of the August 2004 board meeting at which the Framework
was amended.

7. The SPI Secretary is mandated to compile the text of the Framework
for Associated Projects, as amended. The SPI webmaster is
mandated to publish the Framework on an appropriate location on
the SPI website.

8. When this is done, the SPI Secretary is mandated to formally
notify the Board's invitation to Adam Fedor and the GNUstep
project, with reference to the Framework.

Ian.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Fedor writes ("GNUstep project support"):
> > We would like SPI to handle the acceptance and disbursement of
> > donations. Disbursement of donations would be made at the request of
> > the GNUstep maintainer (me) or possibly in the future, some GNUstep
> > development committee.
>
> Here's a resolution for the meeting:
>
> Proposed Resolution 2004-11-04.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.
>
> 4. The GNUstep Maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, will be authorised
> to represent and act for GNUstep, with respect to SPI, and to
> nominate successors.

Isn't this covered by the Advisor resolution, which makes the project
responsible for assigning its own representative, and thus moot this
point?

Advisor resolution:
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000092.html

> 5. This invitation will lapse, if not accepted, on 2005-01-03.

I would change the wording to:
5. This invitation will expire 60 days after its passage by the Board of
Directors, if not accepted.

> FURTHERMORE, WHEREAS
>
> 6. The current text of the Framework for Associated Projects is not
> available on the SPI website Resolutions section, nor are the
> minutes of the August 2004 board meeting at which the Framework
> was amended.

Minutes:
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000099.html
Resolution:
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000091.html

> 7. The SPI Secretary is mandated to compile the text of the Framework
> for Associated Projects, as amended. The SPI webmaster is
> mandated to publish the Framework on an appropriate location on
> the SPI website.

See http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-www/2004-October/000555.html
SPI's website administrators have been in possession of a complete list of
changes that need doing for a month, and this message is cc'd to them as a
reminder.

> 8. When this is done, the SPI Secretary is mandated to formally
> notify the Board's invitation to Adam Fedor and the GNUstep
> project, with reference to the Framework.

Strike paragraphs 4, 6, and 7, modify 5, and you'll have my support for
it. A lot of this language doesn't belong in our acceptance resolution for
a member project.

I have no objections to the GNUstep project though I admit I know little
about it.

Thanks.

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

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:09:40PM -0500, David Graham - SPI Secretary wrote:
> > 4. The GNUstep Maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, will be authorised
> > to represent and act for GNUstep, with respect to SPI, and to
> > nominate successors.
>
> Isn't this covered by the Advisor resolution, which makes the project
> responsible for assigning its own representative, and thus moot this
> point?
>
> Advisor resolution:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000092.html

I believe this (par. 4) is a statement of authority, not a statement of
Advisorship. It gives Adam the authority to speak on behalf of the
project to SPI. Think of it like a liaison thing. I expect that the
GNUstep project will nominate a person (possibly Adam) to be
Representative Advisor, and Adam will inform SPI of this fact. At that
point, Adam's status as liaison will be unnecessary.

My, that was a bit rambly. But I think I got my point across.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> 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.

This para 4 is the `state the SPI Board's current understanding of who
is authorised to act for the project' of the Framework's para 6.

> Advisor resolution:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000092.html
> Minutes:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000099.html
> Resolution:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000091.html

Oh, excellent, thank you. I should have thought to look in the list
archives.

> Strike paragraphs 4, 6, and 7, modify 5, and you'll have my support for
> it. A lot of this language doesn't belong in our acceptance resolution for
> a member project.

I'll get rid of the stuff about the minutes and the website and make a
direct reference to the Framework. Para 4 has to stay though,
surely ?

> I have no objections to the GNUstep project though I admit I know little
> about it.

Right. It's been around for ages ...

Ian.

Taral writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> I believe this (par. 4) is a statement of authority, not a statement of
> Advisorship. It gives Adam the authority to speak on behalf of the
> project to SPI. Think of it like a liaison thing. I expect that the
> GNUstep project will nominate a person (possibly Adam) to be
> Representative Advisor, and Adam will inform SPI of this fact. At that
> point, Adam's status as liaison will be unnecessary.

Not unnecessary, because Adam could still fire the advisor.

Ian.

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

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> 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.'

Maybe we should avoid the term `representative'. Both my paragraph
and yours use it, but it seems to be causing confusion. There are
(at least) two kinds of `representative': there's the board Advisor,
and there's the person (or people) who we acknowledge to be in
ultimate charge.

I'm trying to think of a suitable wording. Perhaps:

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

Ian.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> > 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.'
>
> Maybe we should avoid the term `representative'. Both my paragraph
> and yours use it, but it seems to be causing confusion. There are
> (at least) two kinds of `representative': there's the board Advisor,
> and there's the person (or people) who we acknowledge to be in
> ultimate charge.
>
> I'm trying to think of a suitable wording. Perhaps:
>
> 4. The GNUstep maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, is recognised by
> SPI as the authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.

You could also use the term lead developer which may be more suitable
depending on the project in question.

Regards,

Joey

--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea.

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Maybe we should avoid the term `representative'. Both my paragraph
> and yours use it, but it seems to be causing confusion. There are
> (at least) two kinds of `representative': there's the board Advisor,
> and there's the person (or people) who we acknowledge to be in
> ultimate charge.

Ok, that's a good point.

> I'm trying to think of a suitable wording. Perhaps:
>
> 4. The GNUstep maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, is recognised by
> SPI as the authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.
.. until informed otherwise by the GNUstep project.
or
.. at the time of the passing of this resolution.

lest we be bound to this particular statement even if he moves on.

We ought to get this resolution to the point where it can be used as a
cookie-cutter template for future projects joining.

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

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > 4. The GNUstep maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, is recognised by
> > SPI as the authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.
> .. until informed otherwise by the GNUstep project.
> or
> .. at the time of the passing of this resolution.
> lest we be bound to this particular statement even if he moves on.

The Board's resolutions don't bind the Board, but it would be good not
to give the appearance of inconsistency :-).

I like the latter. We could shrink it down to moving `currently':

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

> We ought to get this resolution to the point where it can be used as a
> cookie-cutter template for future projects joining.

Quite so.

Ian.