Re: GNUstep project support

From: Martin Schulze <joey(at)infodrom(dot)org>
To: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: 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 16:41:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

You could also use the term lead developer which may be more suitable
depending on the project in question.



Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea.

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Graham - SPI Secretary 2004-11-05 16:41:34 Re: GNUstep project support
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2004-11-05 16:07:54 Re: GNUstep project support