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 [email protected] _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
