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