Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell writes ("SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @
> 20:00 UTC"):
> > 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)I think you mean 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project) rather than 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project) > > Can I bring to the attention of the Board my objection to the wording > of clause 4 of this resolution ? > > I propose this alternative (this is my earlier text amended along the > lines suggested by Stefano Sabatini): > > 4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the current liason for > FFmpeg. SPI expects him to inform us of decisions relating to SPI > made by the FFmpeg project, and we will honour his requests in > accordance with the Framework for Associated Projects. > > However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance > structure. Therefore in case of dispute, SPI will follow what > appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus view of the > FFmpeg project's direct contributors. > > Changes since my previous version are to remove `significant' in front > of `dispute' and to change `committers' to `direct contributors'. I > respectfully submit that the Board should approve this text rather > than the proposal in 2012-05-17.mcs.1. > > In the email discussion no-one seems to have suggested that > "authoritative decisionmaker" _doesn't_ mean what I say it does. > > The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always > done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100% > attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done > wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now. Seems reasonable to me. -- ---------------------------- Michael Schultheiss E-mail: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
