Re: GNUstep project support

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: David Graham - SPI Secretary <cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
Cc: Adam Fedor <fedor(at)doc(dot)com>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-www(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: GNUstep project support
Date: 2004-11-04 19:31:16
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> Isn't this covered by the Advisor resolution, which makes the project
> responsible for assigning its own representative, and thus moot this
> point?

Err, but we have to say who we have agreed is `the project'. I mean,
what if GWB comes along tomorrow and says `I, being the chief of the
GNUstep project, appoint myself to be the new representative for
GNUstep' ? Obviously that's daft, because Adam would have to do it,
but there's nothing besides my para 4 that would contradict it.

This para 4 is the `state the SPI Board's current understanding of who
is authorised to act for the project' of the Framework's para 6.

> Advisor resolution:
> Minutes:
> Resolution:

Oh, excellent, thank you. I should have thought to look in the list

> Strike paragraphs 4, 6, and 7, modify 5, and you'll have my support for
> it. A lot of this language doesn't belong in our acceptance resolution for
> a member project.

I'll get rid of the stuff about the minutes and the website and make a
direct reference to the Framework. Para 4 has to stay though,
surely ?

> I have no objections to the GNUstep project though I admit I know little
> about it.

Right. It's been around for ages ...



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2004-11-04 19:33:26 Re: GNUstep project support
Previous Message Taral 2004-11-04 19:30:04 Re: GNUstep project support