SPI Workshop/Brainstorming Session at Debconf

From: "Benj(dot) Mako Hill" <mako(at)bork(dot)hampshire(dot)edu>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, debconf(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Cc: spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: SPI Workshop/Brainstorming Session at Debconf
Date: 2003-07-11 02:28:15
Message-ID: 20030711022813.GG508@kamna
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general


Two of my goals in running for a position on the Software in the
Public Interest board of directors where to (1) help make SPI more
accountable and response to the needs of its members and its community
and to (2) help push for a more active SPI.

I'd like the help of all SPI members in doing both.

In the opening session in Debconf in Oslo, I will be facilitating a
two hour workshop on SPI. Since Debconf will likely be the largest
face to meeting of SPI contributing members this year, it is a unique
opportunity to brainstorm and talk about SPI's future and goals. Of
course, I realize that most SPI members (and for that matter, most of
the board) will not be present. As a result, I'd like to begin the
process leading up the workshop on the lists now, report from the
workshop, and then carry on the discussion on the lists afterward if
people feel the need.

I'm sending this message to call for proposals and discussion about
SPI (and its future) to integrate into the workshop at Debconf. What
has SPI done well? What has SPI failed to do? What do want to see SPI
do in the future? How can SPI become more visible? Is this visibility
a good thing and/or necessary? Please feel free to include proposals,
concrete or vague.

Here are some thoughts that I can offer to begin this discussion (this
is not necessarily my position but it does represent the feelings of

SPI's includes the broad goal of promoting free software. As a
result, SPI's relationship to its member projects is not as close,
and perhaps as meaningful, as the relationship of the GNOME and
Apache foundations to their member projects perhaps. In response, SPI
could could move implicitly toward this model or explicitly by
renaming to "The Debian Foundation."

Or this connected idea:

SPI can provide either offer more support and connection with its
member project, or support to more member projects but it's unlikely
to do both well. SPI must decide how it wants to focus.

Feel free to respond directly to these "proposals" or to take the
conversation in another direction. Please follow-up on spi-general.

Thank you for time and your thoughts.


Benj. Mako Hill


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josip Rodin 2003-07-11 11:17:49 Re: SPI Workshop/Brainstorming Session at Debconf
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2003-07-08 19:39:25 Board meeting procedure