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

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:09:52AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well as it stands I think the resolution is flawed. We can not have more
> than one liaison. It needs to be reworded in a way that the liaison has
> delegation authority or something if they want a backup, but a "pair" of
> equals is a bad idea.

I must thank Ian Jackson for actually taking the time to submit proposed
alternative wording to effectuate his suggestions, and with plenty of time to
discuss his submission before the meeting. I wish he wasn't the only one.

That said, I got the strong impression that OpenWRT wanted to have two equals
for some reason. We'll see what they say during the meeting; I have zero doubt
they will be asked about that. If the OpenWRT people can actually identify one
of Gregers and Andy who should be the sole liaison and do so in a way that
complies with the OpenWRT charter, then I'll be fine with that change.

If not, as I have previously stated, I think the current resolution is flawed
but sufficiently workable to approve now, and then tweak later if a better
solution agreeable to both SPI and OpenWRT presents itself. Approving OpenWRT
has already been delayed a long time and I don't consider this a showstopper
flaw, especially since we're only protecting against the very unlikely case
that both liaisons (neither of whom has independent decisionmaking authority)
disagree about what decision the OpenWRT developer body has already made AND
the third person we are supposed to contact doesn't give us a credible answer
AND the board of SPI fails to act like the responsible, mostly rational adults
we are.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org