Re: GNUstep project support

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:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000092.html
> Minutes:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000099.html
> Resolution:
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2004/000091.html

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

> 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 ...

Ian.