On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
I think very few SPI associated projects have the ultimate decisionmaking authority in the hands of the rough consensus of a mailing list. Most have something more formal than that, which might explain why it's an uncommon issue. Or, yes, unthinking reuse of previous templates is another possible explanation. :-)
I actually expected the reference to the mailing list in the resolution to be raised as a concern if anything was going to be.
I thought about this for a while and reviewed existing resolutions before posting resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 . I noted that resolution 2011-08-10.bg.2 (Arch Linux as associated project) places the ability to appoint the project liaison in the hands of "a simple majority of existing Arch Linux developers" if a sitting liaison does not appoint their own successor.
I concluded that using a mailing list for this purpose is not such a large departure from existing practice.
As noted in an earlier post, I was also aware that resolution 2004-08-10.iwj.1 (Associated Project Framework) allows SPI to act if a project's internal organization or procedures are unclear or disputed.
Taking all of this in to account, I concluded I was happy to post the proposal.
Cheers, Rob -- Director, Software in the Public Interest, Inc. Email: [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
