Re: GNUstep project support

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, Adam Fedor <fedor(at)doc(dot)com>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: GNUstep project support
Date: 2004-11-05 16:07:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

David Graham - SPI Secretary writes ("Re: GNUstep project support"):
> Right right, the framework resolution says we acknowledge who we see as
> responsible.
> Paragraph 4 of this resolution could perhaps thus read:
> '4. The GNUstep maintainer, at the time of the passing of this resolution
> is Adam Fedor. He will serve as the project's representative until SPI is
> informed otherwise by the GNUstep project.'

Maybe we should avoid the term `representative'. Both my paragraph
and yours use it, but it seems to be causing confusion. There are
(at least) two kinds of `representative': there's the board Advisor,
and there's the person (or people) who we acknowledge to be in
ultimate charge.

I'm trying to think of a suitable wording. Perhaps:

4. The GNUstep maintainer, currently Adam Fedor, is recognised by
SPI as the authoritative decisionmaker in the GNUstep project.



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martin Schulze 2004-11-05 16:41:20 Re: GNUstep project support
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2004-11-05 15:55:52 OpenC++ project