Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project

From: Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, secretary(at)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project
Date: 2009-03-18 15:53:34
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 04:51:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Well, for prior organizations we haven't allowed having more than one
> liaison for *any* organization to avoid confusion. Why would OpenWRT be
> different? One of the two needs to be the main liaison, and the other
> an alternate.

I realize there's a chance you'll consider this another past mistake which
shouldn't be repeated, but less than 2 years ago we allowed OpenVAS to have
three "authorititive [sic] decisionmakers" according to a similar constitution
to OpenWRT's charter which also specifies mostly consensus-based

This is not unprecedented, in other words. In the past, we have just followed
instructions from any one of the OpenVAS people, if I remember right, except
regarding "change control" (which I assume to mean changing the liaisons) which
required 2 out of the 3 to agree. Anyone who remembers otherwise, please say

My expectation is that for OpenWRT we'd just follow instructions from either
Gregers or Andy, which under their rules would have to already result from
consensus within the OpenWRT developer community, and do our best to keep both
of them in the loop (e.g. via email CCs). If one of them says "that's not what
OpenWRT decided!" about an instruction from the other before the relevant
action has been taken, then we have a clear and simple way to deal with that:
wait until the discrepancy is resolved by the third person named in my revised

As others have said, if differing stories between the two liaisons become a
recurring issue, then we'll deal with it like the rational and intelligent
human beings which we all are; we're not automata and can use human judgment as

It's certainly not a perfect solution, but they seem to want more than one
liaison, possibly for cases where one of them is unavailable. In any case, to
whatever extent it's flawed, I think it's still sufficiently workable to
approve today, and then tweak later if a better solution arises that's
acceptable to SPI and OpenWRT.

Now I'm going to update the copy of my resolution in the agenda to include the
revisions I already posted to this list, as well as Michael Schultheiss's
treasurer's report.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-03-18 17:51:44 Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2009-03-18 14:39:18 Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]