SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1 - Chakra as an associated project

The resolution below is submitted to the membership for discussion. I
believe that Chakra fulfils the requirements for acceptance as an
associated project.

Jonathan, please include this resolution in the April board meeting.

Resolution:

SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1

WHEREAS

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

2. The Chakra developers would like SPI's support and assistance,
including legal assistance, holding property and taking donations.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

3. Chakra 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/2004/2004-08-10.iwj.1/

4. H W Tovetjaern is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
and SPI liaison for Chakra. In the event that H W Tovetjaern is
uncontactable, Neophytos Kolokotronis will take over as SPI liaison.
Future liaisons will be appointed in turn by the sitting project liaison,
or by a simple majority of existing Chakra developers.

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

Thanks,

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

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 02:06:19AM +1000, Robert Brockway wrote:
> The resolution below is submitted to the membership for discussion.
> I believe that Chakra fulfils the requirements for acceptance as an
> associated project.

Could you give some pointer to what Chakra is (or more to the point, which) ?
An URL would do.

Cheers,
Bill.

Robert Brockway writes ("SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1 - Chakra as an associated project"):
> The resolution below is submitted to the membership for discussion. I
> believe that Chakra fulfils the requirements for acceptance as an
> associated project.

I think that when an associated project is first mooted, the proposer
should tell us (the membership) some basic information, references,
etc.

I went to Wikipedia, and I assume that this is the Linux distro
("formerly based on Arch" says WP) rather than the proprietary
javascript interpreter.

http://chakraos.org/home/ AFAICT.

Thanks,
Ian.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I think that when an associated project is first mooted, the proposer
> should tell us (the membership) some basic information, references,
> etc.

Fair enough. I actually have some but concluded I hadn't written them
very well and so dropped them from the post.

> I went to Wikipedia, and I assume that this is the Linux distro
> ("formerly based on Arch" says WP) rather than the proprietary
> javascript interpreter.
>
> http://chakraos.org/home/ AFAICT.

Yes you are correct.

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

On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Robert Brockway wrote:

> The resolution below is submitted to the membership for discussion. I
> believe that Chakra fulfils the requirements for acceptance as an associated
> project.

Following the release of the initial proposal I've received some feedback
in private. After discussions with Hans Tovetjaern and others the
following revised proposal is offered.

SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1

1. Chakra is a community based Linux distribution intended to provide a
full operating system primarily for desktop users and is a substantial and
significant Free Software project. Chakra fosters, promotes and increases
access to software systems available to the general public and supports,
encourages and promotes the creation and development of software available
to the general public.

2. The Chakra developers would like SPI's support and assistance,
including legal assistance, holding property and taking donations.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

3. Chakra 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/2004/2004-08-10.iwj.1/

4. H W Tovetjaern is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
and SPI liaison for Chakra. In the event that H W Tovetjaern is
uncontactable, Neophytos Kolokotronis will take over as SPI liaison.
Future liaisons will be appointed in turn by the sitting project liaison,
or by a simple majority of existing Chakra developers.

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

Thanks,

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

Robert Brockway writes ("Re: SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1 - Chakra as an associated project"):
> 4. H W Tovetjaern is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
> and SPI liaison for Chakra.

(As I have said before) the purpose of this part of the SPI project
resolution template is to document SPI's understanding of the
project's governance model.

Is Chakra's governance model autocracy, then ? I don't think that's
the case. The webserver is down but http://chakraos.org/wiki/ refers
to "The Chakra Team" and
http://chakraos.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions
has a (sadly dead) link to something called the "core development
team".

I think we should stop using this phrase "authoritative decision
maker". It implies that the project is an autocracy, but not everyone
is aware of that. If the project is an autocracy we should say that.
But most projects aren't. Self-perpetuating oligarchies are much more
common.

How about we use one of the following templates:

| Foo Project's governance model is currently an autocracy,
| with Alice Jones in charge and Bob Kramer as deputy.

| Foo Project's governance model is currently a self-perpetuating
| oligarchy. At the time of writing the {core team | executive
| board | committers} are Alice Jones, Bob Kramer, Carol Liszt and
| Dave Macallan.

| Foo Project's governance structure and current role-holders are
| documented on their web page at <URL> and <URL>, and will be
| honoured by SPI.

| Foo Project does not currently have an agreed governance
| structure; in the unlikely and unfortunate event that SPI would
| have to decide between the wishes of competing factions, SPI would
| do so based on the merits.

followed by in each case

| The initial SPI liason for Foo will be Eve Nieder.

In this case I would defer to any comments from the Chakra project but
I think the intent of the "core development team" probably that that
team is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.

I also think the drafts of these resolutions should be sent to some
appropriate list belonging to the project, if there is one. That way
if the person drafting the resolution has misunderstood the project's
governance structure (or there is a dispute) it can be straightened
out.

Thanks,
Ian.

On 04/09/2014 11:22 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> | Foo Project does not currently have an agreed governance
> | structure; in the unlikely and unfortunate event that SPI would
> | have to decide between the wishes of competing factions, SPI would
> | do so based on the merits.

Not in a million years.

You're proposing that SPI would arbitrate project governance disputes,
which is something which we have already rejected for very good reasons.

Project charters need to have a definite and unequivocal explanation of
determining the liaison, regardless of that that method is.

So, -1000 from me.

--Josh Berkus

On Wednesday 09 Apr 2014 16:22:20 Ian Jackson wrote:
> Robert Brockway writes ("Re: SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1 - Chakra as an
associated project"):
> > 4. H W Tovetjaern is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
> > and SPI liaison for Chakra.
>
> (As I have said before) the purpose of this part of the SPI project
> resolution template is to document SPI's understanding of the
> project's governance model.
>
> Is Chakra's governance model autocracy, then ? I don't think that's
> the case. The webserver is down but http://chakraos.org/wiki/ refers
> to "The Chakra Team" and
> http://chakraos.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions
> has a (sadly dead) link to something called the "core development
> team".
>
> I think we should stop using this phrase "authoritative decision
> maker". It implies that the project is an autocracy, but not everyone
> is aware of that. If the project is an autocracy we should say that.
> But most projects aren't. Self-perpetuating oligarchies are much more
> common.
>
> How about we use one of the following templates:
> | Foo Project's governance model is currently an autocracy,
> | with Alice Jones in charge and Bob Kramer as deputy.
> |
> | Foo Project's governance model is currently a self-perpetuating
> | oligarchy. At the time of writing the {core team | executive
> | board | committers} are Alice Jones, Bob Kramer, Carol Liszt and
> | Dave Macallan.
> |
> | Foo Project's governance structure and current role-holders are
> | documented on their web page at <URL> and <URL>, and will be
> | honoured by SPI.
> |
> | Foo Project does not currently have an agreed governance
> | structure; in the unlikely and unfortunate event that SPI would
> | have to decide between the wishes of competing factions, SPI would
> | do so based on the merits.
>
> followed by in each case
>
> | The initial SPI liason for Foo will be Eve Nieder.
>
> In this case I would defer to any comments from the Chakra project but
> I think the intent of the "core development team" probably that that
> team is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
>
> I also think the drafts of these resolutions should be sent to some
> appropriate list belonging to the project, if there is one. That way
> if the person drafting the resolution has misunderstood the project's
> governance structure (or there is a dispute) it can be straightened
> out.
>
> Thanks,
> Ian.
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general

Could "authoritative decision maker" be replaced with "arbiter"? If it doesn't
cause a ruckus, I'd personally favour being viewed as an arbiter rather than a
project leader.

For reference in this specific case, the current listing of contributors can
be found at http://chakraos.org/home/?who. The URL is subject to change, but
the intent is to provide a handful of "static" pages (i.e. not wiki articles)
that only a select few can edit to maintain a degree of legitimacy to this
kind of information. These pages will be linked to from the "frontpage",
http://chakraos.org/home/, on which you currently find links to the page for
downloading, a page about Chakra itself as well as the previously mentioned
page covering contributors.

As for the "core development team" I'd personally suggest referring to it as
"Chakra developers" or "Chakra contributors". There are those of us with what
could be perceived as "voting rights" but it is very loosely defined and there
are no established procedures for the process to becoming or remaining one. It
is being worked on, but these things take time - and especially since Chakra
has from a historical perspective more or less been owned and led by single
individuals.

We do have a mailing list for the administrators which is sort of a
"collaborative inbox" to which a select few have access, chakra-
cabal(at)googlegroups(dot)com(dot) Anyone can send e-mail to it and my intent is to have
everything sent to the standard e-mail addresses such as abuse(at)chakraos(dot)org,
webmaster(at)chakraos(dot)org, postmaster(at)chakraos(dot)org, info(at)chakraos(dot)org, etc. (you
get the idea) forwarded to it.

Oh and yes, everything previously found at chakra-project.org and chakra-
linux.org has been set up anew at chakraos.org. Unfortunately I can't do
anything about the two lost domains.
--
Best regards,
H W "totte" Tovetjärn
totte(at)tott(dot)es
www.tott.es