Re: [Spi-private] SPI board and the software patent issue

Bruce Perens wrote at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/votes/vote5/nominations/BrucePerens.txt:

> I know of few people who do as much for Free Software as I. You can see

I could name hundreds that do more, and that's just people that I know
of that post on debian-devel. All I've seen you do lately is stir up
flamewars. Frankly, we don't need big egos around that loudly
proclaim "few people do as much for Free Software". We need people
that are willing to pitch in and do more than is expected of them.

We need people that have a real passion to make SPI come alive.

Some of them are running in this election, which is absolutely GREAT.

We don't even need people that have done lots for Free Software. We
need people that are dedicated to SPI and its cause.

I've bit my tongue about you for a few years now, out of respect for a
fellow candidate for the board, a fellow member of it, and out of a
need to be a force for unity and progress as president.

I am not running for re-election this year, so I'll be off the board.
I have no more need to be overly diplomatic about this.

I was hoping you would not be running again, so we could be rid of
this problem without having to drag these things up.

I am still a contributing member to SPI, though, and I WILL be
voting. You will not get my vote.

> that on my resume at http://perens.com/Bio.html . Richard Stallman does
> more, indeed he dedicates his entire life to it to the exclusion of all
> else. For that we should honor him. I am a husband and the parent of a
> wonderful six-year-old, and that's mission #1. Hopefully you are
> satisfied with Free Software being #2.

I would be happier if you would actually show up for board meetings.
You were at only 4 meetings in the last year. That's 29% attendance,
and you missed enough that the Board would have been within its rights
to expel you under the Board Meeting Attendance Policy.

I would also dispute the assertion that most of the real business at
SPI is on a mailing list. Preparations, perhaps, but each month's
board meeting by far accomplishes more than the past month's
discussions in e-mail. But how would you know?

Your participation in important email discussions was also minimal.
Your offers to pitch in and volunteer to spend time to help with
problems were, well, nonexistant.

When was the last time the SPI board approved a resolution in email?
It's been *ages*.

> or at a meeting on Free Software community business. As most of the real
> business of SPI is on a mailing list, that's not been too bad. The

Well, your terrible attitude about attendance has contributed to us
missing quorum on more than one occasion. You didn't even bother to
send regrets except for *one* meeting in the past year. That's right,
you missed NINE meetings without even telling anyone. Others
took time out of their evenings, or days at work, to be there, but you
couldn't even be bothered to tell us that we needn't bother because
you wouldn't be there.

I think that the era of do-nothings on the SPI board ought to be long
over. You are all air and no do. You do the absolute minimum that
you have to in order to stay on the board. I get the feeling that you
are doing this just to be able to put it on your resume.

Heck, two people that AREN'T EVEN ON THE BOARD were at more meetings
than you.

And when you do get involved, it's usually to make misleading comments
to outsiders.

> hardest part of SPI is the treasurer's job, and that's not one I'm
> well-suited for. I am, however, encouraged by the process in moving much
> of this work to paid professionals.

I am heartened that you are no longer trying to make SPI move all of
this to your own personal assistant.

You do not get a free ride at this organization because of your
history with it. (Which, those who were around back then, will recall
was not entirely positive either.)

-- John

Geez, John. I think you are a little heated up. I'm sorry that you are
not running, as I do believe you were a positive contribution to the
board, and I tremendously appreciate that you were able to do stuff that
I could not, like be in one place to attend board meetings while I was
flying around.

I wish you'd step back a bit and cool off. I recognize that I can get
people annoyed, thus I'll apologize. I also wish you had taken up this
discussion when we could have done something about it, instead of
bottling it up to use in slamming the door as you depart. Can't we try
this again in a more civil tone?

Without discounting your concern, I should note in my defense that some
of those missed meetings were due to things like visiting the U.S.
patent office or speaking to the U.N. or the European parliament in
Brussels. All of those were about POLITICAL POLICY issues that deeply
effect the future of Free Software. And there is one point that I
absolutely should make, since you've decided to stage a debate. I am
concerned with POLITICAL POLICY. I do things about it, including leave
my kid for 10 days at a time to travel to where I can influence
governments. I see the same few faces from our community every time I do.

Regarding my "few people" statement, one should not be meek about their
own accomplishments in a political campaign or a resume. At the same
time, I do not mean to belittle anyone's efforts. Indeed, the other
folks who are campaigning seem to be meritorious, and I am going to vote
for Josh because he's volunteering to be TREASURER. That's wonderful.
I'm not sure, Josh, if you understand the 0% success record of SPI
treasurers. You have my admiration for taking it on, and no doubt you'll
get the job. I'm not sure you have to fire Mark's Book-keeping, but we
can discuss that later.

But back to the political policy thing. None of the other folks who are
campaigning chose to say anything about the big issues that concern us.
And that is the biggest problem that I see with SPI. Let's face it, SPI
manages a checkbook. And it does that relatively poorly so far. AND
THAT's ALL. Yet, SPI is the same kind of 501(c)3 organization as EFF.
SPI should really be doing more of the things that EFF does, and that I
am currently doing without a non-profit behind me. Let's face it, John.
In the three years I've been on the board, I've seen about one important
decision come to vote. Yawn. No wonder, according to your chart, we've
had two meetings in recent time where ONE PERSON showed up.

But I would not have suggested that the organization do more while its
books were a farce. Nobody would have respected us. That's done, dispite
the fact that the treasurer's report is late and our taxes still need
work. And we're most likely getting new blood for Treasurer. Maybe now
we can be more.

I hope you understand what deep s**t Free Software is in with the
software patent issue. In a few years, there could effectively be no
Free Software, if political decisions go badly for us. And frankly I
would not be able to sleep if I were to just stand by and let that happen.

Now, it happens that I don't really have to be on SPI's board to do what
I'm doing. But I continue to believe in SPI, and in Debian, and I'd
especially like to see Debian pull through some of the bad times it's
been having. And I think involvement in some bigger issues can help
that. Remember when I represented SPI on the W3C patent policy board,
back when W3C was about to go to patent royalties on web standards? We
got something very important done then. You could be proud to be in the
organization. Now that the embarassing money issues are mostly solved, I
can do more of that as SPI rather than as Bruce operating alone.

> I have no more need to be overly diplomatic about this.
>
Well, I thought that as secretary, you were in charge of the election.
If so, maybe it would be best for you to restrict yourself to civil
debate until it's over. I shall endeavor to remain civil to you.
> I would also dispute the assertion that most of the real business at
> SPI is on a mailing list.
Actually, I wish _all_ of the business was on the mailing list. I would
vastly prefer it to IRC, and I am on other boards that operate that way.
I submit that it would help the organization operate better and
eliminate the quorum problem, and people in different time-zones would
be able to sleep at night. And regarding where the real business is,
please take an objective look at the board meeting agendas. But this is
not to say that more important stuff was being done on the mailing
lists. We haven't taken on important stuff while the money issues were
being worked out.
> I am heartened that you are no longer trying to make SPI move all of
> this to your own personal assistant.
>
I have not had that assistant for about two years. At the time I
suggested that, Ean was president and was trying to move the
book-keeping to his mother. I haven't a complaint about our use of a
professional book-keeper. Com'on, John. You're letting go of stuff you
bottled up for two years?

We can do better than this. Please go out and have a beer or something
and then we'll continue this in a more constructive vein.

Thanks

Bruce

Geez, John. I think you are a little heated up. I'm sorry that you are
not running, as I do believe you were a positive contribution to the
board, and I tremendously appreciate that you were able to do stuff that
I could not, like be in one place to attend board meetings while I was
flying around.

I wish you'd step back a bit and cool off. I recognize that I can get
people annoyed, thus I'll apologize. I also wish you had taken up this
discussion when we could have done something about it, instead of
bottling it up to use in slamming the door as you depart. Can't we try
this again in a more civil tone?

Without discounting your concern, I should note in my defense that some
of those missed meetings were due to things like visiting the U.S.
patent office or speaking to the U.N. or the European parliament in
Brussels. All of those were about POLITICAL POLICY issues that deeply
effect the future of Free Software. And there is one point that I
absolutely should make, since you've decided to stage a debate. I am
concerned with POLITICAL POLICY. I do things about it, including leave
my kid for 10 days at a time to travel to where I can influence
governments. I see the same few faces from our community every time I do.

Regarding my "few people" statement, one should not be meek about their
own accomplishments in a political campaign or a resume. At the same
time, I do not mean to belittle anyone's efforts. Indeed, the other
folks who are campaigning seem to be meritorious, and I am going to vote
for Josh because he's volunteering to be TREASURER. That's wonderful.
I'm not sure, Josh, if you understand the 0% success record of SPI
treasurers. You have my admiration for taking it on, and no doubt you'll
get the job. I'm not sure you have to fire Mark's Book-keeping, but we
can discuss that later.

But back to the political policy thing. None of the other folks who are
campaigning chose to say anything about the big issues that concern us.
And that is the biggest problem that I see with SPI. Let's face it, SPI
manages a checkbook. And it does that relatively poorly so far. AND
THAT's ALL. Yet, SPI is the same kind of 501(c)3 organization as EFF.
SPI should really be doing more of the things that EFF does, and that I
am currently doing without a non-profit behind me. Let's face it, John.
In the three years I've been on the board, I've seen about one important
decision come to vote. Yawn. No wonder, according to your chart, we've
had two meetings in recent time where ONE PERSON showed up.

But I would not have suggested that the organization do more while its
books were a farce. Nobody would have respected us. That's done, dispite
the fact that the treasurer's report is late and our taxes still need
work. And we're most likely getting new blood for Treasurer. Maybe now
we can be more.

I hope you understand what deep s**t Free Software is in with the
software patent issue. In a few years, there could effectively be no
Free Software, if political decisions go badly for us. And frankly I
would not be able to sleep if I were to just stand by and let that happen.

Now, it happens that I don't really have to be on SPI's board to do what
I'm doing. But I continue to believe in SPI, and in Debian, and I'd
especially like to see Debian pull through some of the bad times it's
been having. And I think involvement in some bigger issues can help
that. Remember when I represented SPI on the W3C patent policy board,
back when W3C was about to go to patent royalties on web standards? We
got something very important done then. You could be proud to be in the
organization. Now that the embarassing money issues are mostly solved, I
can do more of that as SPI rather than as Bruce operating alone.

> I have no more need to be overly diplomatic about this.
>
Well, I thought that as secretary, you were in charge of the election.
If so, maybe it would be best for you to restrict yourself to civil
debate until it's over. I shall endeavor to remain civil to you.
> I would also dispute the assertion that most of the real business at
> SPI is on a mailing list.
Actually, I wish _all_ of the business was on the mailing list. I would
vastly prefer it to IRC, and I am on other boards that operate that way.
I submit that it would help the organization operate better and
eliminate the quorum problem, and people in different time-zones would
be able to sleep at night. And regarding where the real business is,
please take an objective look at the board meeting agendas. But this is
not to say that more important stuff was being done on the mailing
lists. We haven't taken on important stuff while the money issues were
being worked out.
> I am heartened that you are no longer trying to make SPI move all of
> this to your own personal assistant.
>
I have not had that assistant for about two years. At the time I
suggested that, Ean was president and was trying to move the
book-keeping to his mother. I haven't a complaint about our use of a
professional book-keeper. Com'on, John. You're letting go of stuff you
bottled up for two years?

We can do better than this. Please go out and have a beer or something
and then we'll continue this in a more constructive vein.

Thanks

Bruce

Folks,

I am afraid that there's been a process problem with the election.

The secretary, who is in charge of releasing the election platform
announcement, chose to announce my candidacy to spi-general by posting a
very large flame about me.

Now, if this had gone correctly, the secretary would have announced my
candidacy with a nicely-worded statement containing the location of the
platforms of all of the candidates, and a call to begin the vote. Then,
and only then, he might have chosen to engage in debate. Hopefully in a
more civil manner, and in a way that was fair to all candidates.

I think the way this went was unfair to me, and it seems to me that the
election is a bit tainted by it.

I had no idea that I rubbed John so badly, and at least two years of
feeling all seems to have come out at once.

I do not want to reprimand or penalize anyone, I don't want to hurt John
in any way. I just wish I could push reset and make what just happened
go away.

Thanks

Bruce

John Goerzen wrote:
> Bruce Perens wrote at
> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/votes/vote5/nominations/BrucePerens.txt:
>
>
>> I know of few people who do as much for Free Software as I. You can see
>>
>
> I could name hundreds that do more, and that's just people that I know
> of that post on debian-devel. All I've seen you do lately is stir up
> flamewars. Frankly, we don't need big egos around that loudly
> proclaim "few people do as much for Free Software". We need people
> that are willing to pitch in and do more than is expected of them.
>
> We need people that have a real passion to make SPI come alive.
>
> Some of them are running in this election, which is absolutely GREAT.
>
> We don't even need people that have done lots for Free Software. We
> need people that are dedicated to SPI and its cause.
>
> I've bit my tongue about you for a few years now, out of respect for a
> fellow candidate for the board, a fellow member of it, and out of a
> need to be a force for unity and progress as president.
>
> I am not running for re-election this year, so I'll be off the board.
> I have no more need to be overly diplomatic about this.
>
> I was hoping you would not be running again, so we could be rid of
> this problem without having to drag these things up.
>
> I am still a contributing member to SPI, though, and I WILL be
> voting. You will not get my vote.
>
>
>> that on my resume at http://perens.com/Bio.html . Richard Stallman does
>> more, indeed he dedicates his entire life to it to the exclusion of all
>> else. For that we should honor him. I am a husband and the parent of a
>> wonderful six-year-old, and that's mission #1. Hopefully you are
>> satisfied with Free Software being #2.
>>
>
> I would be happier if you would actually show up for board meetings.
> You were at only 4 meetings in the last year. That's 29% attendance,
> and you missed enough that the Board would have been within its rights
> to expel you under the Board Meeting Attendance Policy.
>
> I would also dispute the assertion that most of the real business at
> SPI is on a mailing list. Preparations, perhaps, but each month's
> board meeting by far accomplishes more than the past month's
> discussions in e-mail. But how would you know?
>
> Your participation in important email discussions was also minimal.
> Your offers to pitch in and volunteer to spend time to help with
> problems were, well, nonexistant.
>
> When was the last time the SPI board approved a resolution in email?
> It's been *ages*.
>
>
>> or at a meeting on Free Software community business. As most of the real
>> business of SPI is on a mailing list, that's not been too bad. The
>>
>
> Well, your terrible attitude about attendance has contributed to us
> missing quorum on more than one occasion. You didn't even bother to
> send regrets except for *one* meeting in the past year. That's right,
> you missed NINE meetings without even telling anyone. Others
> took time out of their evenings, or days at work, to be there, but you
> couldn't even be bothered to tell us that we needn't bother because
> you wouldn't be there.
>
> I think that the era of do-nothings on the SPI board ought to be long
> over. You are all air and no do. You do the absolute minimum that
> you have to in order to stay on the board. I get the feeling that you
> are doing this just to be able to put it on your resume.
>
> Heck, two people that AREN'T EVEN ON THE BOARD were at more meetings
> than you.
>
> And when you do get involved, it's usually to make misleading comments
> to outsiders.
>
>
>> hardest part of SPI is the treasurer's job, and that's not one I'm
>> well-suited for. I am, however, encouraged by the process in moving much
>> of this work to paid professionals.
>>
>
> I am heartened that you are no longer trying to make SPI move all of
> this to your own personal assistant.
>
> You do not get a free ride at this organization because of your
> history with it. (Which, those who were around back then, will recall
> was not entirely positive either.)
>
> -- John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-private mailing list
> Spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private
>

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:50:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I am afraid that there's been a process problem with the election.
>
> The secretary, who is in charge of releasing the election platform
> announcement, chose to announce my candidacy to spi-general by posting a
> very large flame about me.

I should point out that John is neither the secretary nor in charge of
releasing the election platform announcement. Both of those roles belong
to David Graham, who had no involvement with that email. I'm somewhat
disappointed that a current board member doesn't know the current
officers.

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

(Sorry if this comes through too many times; I re-sent from my
subscribed address to circumvent list moderation delays.)

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:50:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I am afraid that there's been a process problem with the election.
>
> The secretary, who is in charge of releasing the election platform
> announcement, chose to announce my candidacy to spi-general by posting a
> very large flame about me.

I should point out that John is neither the secretary nor in charge of
releasing the election platform announcement. Both of those roles belong
to David Graham, who had no involvement with that email. I'm somewhat
disappointed that a current board member doesn't know the current
officers.

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

Bruce,

> The secretary, who is in charge of releasing the election platform
> announcement, chose to announce my candidacy to spi-general by posting a
> very large flame about me.

On the other hand, it got people to read it. I doubt anyone read mine. ;-)

Besides, I thought that John was President?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL
San Francisco

I'm sorry. I'm upset. You are right, the darned president announced my
platform that way, not the secretary. IMO, it's still mighty screwed-up
process. And right now I am wondering why I spent 75,000 miles on an
airplane last year going places for Free Software. You folks don't
always make it easy.

Bruce

Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:50:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> I am afraid that there's been a process problem with the election.
>>
>> The secretary, who is in charge of releasing the election platform
>> announcement, chose to announce my candidacy to spi-general by posting a
>> very large flame about me.
>>
>
> I should point out that John is neither the secretary nor in charge of
> releasing the election platform announcement. Both of those roles belong
> to David Graham, who had no involvement with that email. I'm somewhat
> disappointed that a current board member doesn't know the current
> officers.
>
> - Jimmy Kaplowitz
> jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-board mailing list
> Spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-board
>

Josh Berkus wrote:
> On the other hand, it got people to read it. I doubt anyone read mine. ;-)
>
And the way my luck has been running, it'll be on Slashdot or LWN in 15
minutes.

And that will make my work evangelizing government and other folks
outside of the community harder, because we have just given CompTIA and
Microsoft excellent ammunition to use in FUDing whether or not the
community even cares about the things I'm talking about.

Thanks

Bruce

>
> And that will make my work evangelizing government and other folks
> outside of the community harder, because we have just given CompTIA and
> Microsoft excellent ammunition to use in FUDing whether or not the
> community even cares about the things I'm talking about.

Those that really matter, will look at the record of events whether good
or bad.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-private mailing list
> Spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Jimmy pointed out that my statements about the money problems being
mostly over and 0% treasurer success are not self-consistent. They
aren't. Jimmy and Branden have gotten a lot done. The fact that some
problems remain should not obscure that. Jimmy has also made it clear
that he is not leaving the job and will be working with Josh, and that
Branden has been a better vice-treasurer than he was a treasurer.

All that said, my admiration of Josh for taking the job on remains
undiminished. It's the hot seat.

Thanks

Bruce

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:38:16PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Jimmy has also made it clear that he is not leaving the job and will
> be working with Josh

More accurately, I am not abandoning the job suddenly and will be
working with Josh (if he gets elected) to make a smooth transition. I
don't intend to be doing treasurer's duties once my replacement is
firmly settled in, but I'm not going to leave SPI without someone who is
legitimately doing the job as treasurer. I will remain as an SPI
director at least through the end of my board term in 2007. It has been
a pleasure to have helped SPI's finances improve significantly, as
I think they have during my tenure, and it will be even more of a
pleasure to watch my successor take them the rest of the way.

> All that said, my admiration of Josh for taking the job on remains
> undiminished. It's the hot seat.

Definitely. It's the most time-consuming role in SPI. Thank you for
being willing, qualified, and free enough to do it. Like Bruce, I plan
to be voting for Josh, since the several months of experience I have had
working with him as PostgreSQL advisor to SPI makes it clear he can do
the job well.

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

Bruce Perens <bruce(at)perens(dot)com>
> [...] And right now I am wondering why I spent 75,000 miles on an
> airplane last year going places for Free Software. You folks don't
> always make it easy.

Is dumping exhaust fumes into the upper atmosphere a good thing?
http://peopleandplanet.org/navid2447

I acknowledge travelling and speaking to people is good, but it's
not the airplane-sitting that should be recognised.

--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Hello,

[ I left the awkward cross-posting in place ]

On Thu, 13.07.2006 at 21:14:28 -0700, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >And that will make my work evangelizing government and other folks
> >outside of the community harder, because we have just given CompTIA and
> >Microsoft excellent ammunition to use in FUDing whether or not the
> >community even cares about the things I'm talking about.
>
> Those that really matter, will look at the record of events whether good
> or bad.

I don't really understand what you want to say there, but while I do
think that Bruce makes a good job for an evangelist, I'm currently
impartial about whether this would also make him a good SPI president.
But the PR stuff *is* very important. We should not underestimate it.

Anyway, I was able to scrape enough neuron activity to extract a
working URL for all platforms, and read them (all), so...

Best,
--Toni++

John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
> [...] Frankly, we don't need big egos around that loudly
> proclaim "few people do as much for Free Software". We need people
> that are willing to pitch in and do more than is expected of them.

Like it or not, Bruce is not the only candidate with (more
or less) "I'm famous, vote for me" as part of the manifesto.
I really hope that it counts for nothing, but I'm sure everyone
can think of other elections which have become little more than
beauty contests.

I'm not standing because I can't make the commitment I think it
needs and I think I'm too ugly for a beauty contest in this
community anyway, but here how I'd've ended my manifesto:

Please vote for the board promises you like best, more than fame
or figureheads, and please don't hesitate to remove anyone who
breaks their promises.

--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 21:09 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I've bit my tongue about you for a few years now, out of respect for a
> fellow candidate for the board, a fellow member of it, and out of a
> need to be a force for unity and progress as president.

Right. I've only just joined this organisation as a member, but I'm
quite worried that you appearently believe this to be the right approach
to such a situation.

When you're troubled about the actions or non-actions of a fellow board
member, you eiter:
1) Try to change it as soon as possible, talk with them about it, maybe
first in private, if it can't be resolved, with the board as a
whole. You seek changes that address the problems. Or,
2) You accept and ignore it.

However, you *don't*:
3) Keep silent about it when it's still possible to change the
situation, and only when it's over and done with make a big
fuss. And not even just on spi-private but publically!

Option three is a highly unprofessional attitude in my opinion,
regardless of the person Bruce Perens or whatever he's done. It's just
destructive criticism. You're putting the dirty laundry out in front of
the world to see it, without an attempt to resolve the differences in
private and at a time that it would actually have a good effect.

I hope we can be refrained from more of that in the future.

Thijs

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I am afraid that there's been a process problem with the election.
>
> The secretary, who is in charge of releasing the election platform
> announcement, chose to announce my candidacy to spi-general by posting a
> very large flame about me.

Bruce,

Please be advised that I am the secretary, and John Goerzen is the
president.

I will be posting a reminder this evening with everyone's platforms to
indicate nominations are closed and voting has begun. The URL for this has
been posted for two weeks, and the page updated regularly. That should be
at approximately UTC midnight tonight. That is the process.

Thanks.

---
David Graham, SPI Secretary
cdlu(at)spi-inc(dot)org D5F45889

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:26:14PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> Without discounting your concern, I should note in my defense that some
> of those missed meetings were due to things like visiting the U.S.
> patent office or speaking to the U.N. or the European parliament in
> Brussels.

How many of them? Why did you not offer apologies in advance? If
elected, how will you ensure that you attend a higher proportion of
meetings?

> But back to the political policy thing. None of the other folks who are
> campaigning chose to say anything about the big issues that concern us.
> And that is the biggest problem that I see with SPI. Let's face it, SPI
> manages a checkbook. And it does that relatively poorly so far. AND
> THAT's ALL. Yet, SPI is the same kind of 501(c)3 organization as EFF.
> SPI should really be doing more of the things that EFF does, and that I
> am currently doing without a non-profit behind me.

This makes it sound awfully like you want to be involved in SPI so that
you can use SPI to justify your political campaigning. What procedures
will you be using to ensure that you have the backing of the member
organisations? Which of the goals outlined in the SPI bylaws do you
believe would justify this?

> I hope you understand what deep s**t Free Software is in with the
> software patent issue. In a few years, there could effectively be no
> Free Software, if political decisions go badly for us. And frankly I
> would not be able to sleep if I were to just stand by and let that happen.

There are already lobbying organisations that exist for the purpose of
fighting software patents. Does SPI really need to become another?

> Now, it happens that I don't really have to be on SPI's board to do what
> I'm doing.

Indeed, so I'm struggling to see what this has to do with anything...

> But I continue to believe in SPI, and in Debian, and I'd
> especially like to see Debian pull through some of the bad times it's
> been having.

With all due respect, SPI has very little influence on Debian right now
and I think most developers are quite happy with that situation. What
do you feel the bad times have been, and why do you think that SPI can
do anything about them? Would this aim not be better furthered by, say,
getting involved in Debian instead of a separate organisation?

> Well, I thought that as secretary, you were in charge of the election.
> If so, maybe it would be best for you to restrict yourself to civil
> debate until it's over. I shall endeavor to remain civil to you.

And then proceeded to claim that there was a problem with the process.
I'm not convinced that's civil.

> Actually, I wish _all_ of the business was on the mailing list. I would
> vastly prefer it to IRC, and I am on other boards that operate that way.
> I submit that it would help the organization operate better and
> eliminate the quorum problem, and people in different time-zones would
> be able to sleep at night. And regarding where the real business is,
> please take an objective look at the board meeting agendas. But this is
> not to say that more important stuff was being done on the mailing
> lists. We haven't taken on important stuff while the money issues were
> being worked out.

The by-laws would appear to make it rather awkward to run the meetings
in anything other than real time. How would you change this?

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:26:14PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> I wish you'd step back a bit and cool off. I recognize that I can get
> people annoyed, thus I'll apologize. I also wish you had taken up this
> discussion when we could have done something about it, instead of
> bottling it up to use in slamming the door as you depart. Can't we try
> this again in a more civil tone?

Bruce, you know as well as I that this is nowhere near the first time
that most of the matters I've raised have been discussed. And, in fact,
most of the discussion was in private, on the -board list or similar.
Since they were in private, I did not feel comfortable releasing details
here.

You got a far more civil tone than you deserved.

> Without discounting your concern, I should note in my defense that some
> of those missed meetings were due to things like visiting the U.S.
> patent office or speaking to the U.N. or the European parliament in

You know what? That's not relevant at all.

You made a commitment to SPI and you failed to follow through. You
didn't even have the decency to tell us that you wouldn't be there most
of the time.

If your other activities take up too much of your time so that you can't
be involved with SPI, then you shouldn't be involved with SPI. That is
my point.

> Regarding my "few people" statement, one should not be meek about their
> own accomplishments in a political campaign or a resume. At the same
> time, I do not mean to belittle anyone's efforts. Indeed, the other

Well, the purpose of listing accomplishments in a campaign is to help
voters anticipate what a candidate will do in the elected office by
looking at their past, right?

In this case, you've had three years of past with SPI, and you didn't
list any accomplishments with SPI. That is telling.

> folks who are campaigning seem to be meritorious, and I am going to vote
> for Josh because he's volunteering to be TREASURER. That's wonderful.
> I'm not sure, Josh, if you understand the 0% success record of SPI
> treasurers. You have my admiration for taking it on, and no doubt you'll

You know, I agree completely that SPI's bookkeeping isn't where it
should be. But at the same time, SPI has made *tremendous* improvement
in this area in the past couple of years. Coming from the huge mess
that we had before, I think it is tremendously disrespectful -- and
completely inaccurate -- to say that there has been a 0% success record
on the part of the SPI treasurers.

> But back to the political policy thing. None of the other folks who are
> campaigning chose to say anything about the big issues that concern us.

Neither did you, while you were on the board.

> that. Remember when I represented SPI on the W3C patent policy board,
> back when W3C was about to go to patent royalties on web standards? We
> got something very important done then. You could be proud to be in the
> organization. Now that the embarassing money issues are mostly solved, I
> can do more of that as SPI rather than as Bruce operating alone.

Hmm, how are the issues mostly solved if the treasurers had a 0% success
rate?

> >I have no more need to be overly diplomatic about this.
> >
> Well, I thought that as secretary, you were in charge of the election.

I am neither secretary nor in charge of the election.

> >I would also dispute the assertion that most of the real business at
> >SPI is on a mailing list.
> Actually, I wish _all_ of the business was on the mailing list. I would

Many wish that, but the desire doesn't change the fact.

> lists. We haven't taken on important stuff while the money issues were
> being worked out.

Some of us would consider that important.

-- John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 21:09 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I've bit my tongue about you for a few years now, out of respect for a
> > fellow candidate for the board, a fellow member of it, and out of a
> > need to be a force for unity and progress as president.
>
> Right. I've only just joined this organisation as a member, but I'm
> quite worried that you appearently believe this to be the right approach
> to such a situation.
>
> When you're troubled about the actions or non-actions of a fellow board
> member, you eiter:
> 1) Try to change it as soon as possible, talk with them about it, maybe
> first in private, if it can't be resolved, with the board as a
> whole. You seek changes that address the problems. Or,

Thijs, with respect, please consider that if this was done in private,
you wouldn't know about it. In fact, it has been done in private, on
multiple occasions, and not just by me.

> 2) You accept and ignore it.

Which also was done, on multiple occasions, by more than just me.

> However, you *don't*:
> 3) Keep silent about it when it's still possible to change the
> situation, and only when it's over and done with make a big
> fuss. And not even just on spi-private but publically!

It is not "over and done". It would have been if he had chosen not to
run again. I was hoping that Bruce would not run again, given his
obvious lack of interest in actually participating in SPI. But he went
ahead and turned in his platform 30 minutes before the deadline.

> Option three is a highly unprofessional attitude in my opinion,
> regardless of the person Bruce Perens or whatever he's done. It's just
> destructive criticism. You're putting the dirty laundry out in front of
> the world to see it, without an attempt to resolve the differences in
> private and at a time that it would actually have a good effect.

Again, why do you think no attempt was made in private?

Frankly, I care more about having people on SPI's board that will
actually take an interest in SPI than maintaining a professional
attitude at this point.

I also wouldn't have taken the attitude I did if he had posted a less
outrageous platform. It really offends me that someone that hasn't
really done anything at all for SPI for the last few years, yet was on
its board, would seek to run again for that position AND would try to
say that he's done more for free software than anyone except RMS. AND,
if that weren't bad enough, after standing up the board 9 times in the
past year, he says that it's OK he didn't even bother to say he wouldn't
be there because important things don't happen at meetings anyway. If
Bruce believes himself so important that things like getting SPI's
finances in order, paying taxes, and making board election happen are
unimportant, then I wonder why he bothers to run. And if he has so
little respect for the busy schedules of everyone else on the board --
and the contributing members and members of the public that show up --
that he sees nothing wrong with just not showing up, that is also
telling.

I think I am quite right to be offended at this insult against SPI, and
believe that what I posted was quite calm compared to what he really
deserved, after harming SPI's reputation numerous times.

-- John

John Goerzen wrote:
> Thijs, with respect, please consider that if this was done in private,
> you wouldn't know about it. In fact, it has been done in private, on
> multiple occasions, and not just by me.
>
Members of longer standing have access to spi-private and can judge this
for themselves. I went through my communication from you, and can't
really say I agree. We've had contact on two issues in recent time. I'd
also like you to note that my phone number is published on my web site.
> AND would try to say that he's done more for free software than anyone except RMS.
I said "few people", not "anyone except RMS". I did make the point that
RMS gives up more than anyone.
> I think I am quite right to be offended at this insult against SPI
This is over the top.

Thanks

Bruce

Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [ I left the awkward cross-posting in place ]
>
> On Thu, 13.07.2006 at 21:14:28 -0700, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Bruce Perens wrote:
>>> And that will make my work evangelizing government and other folks
>>> outside of the community harder, because we have just given CompTIA and
>>> Microsoft excellent ammunition to use in FUDing whether or not the
>>> community even cares about the things I'm talking about.
>> Those that really matter, will look at the record of events whether good
>> or bad.
>
> I don't really understand what you want to say there, but while I do
> think that Bruce makes a good job for an evangelist, I'm currently
> impartial about whether this would also make him a good SPI president.
> But the PR stuff *is* very important. We should not underestimate it.

I was saying that I think Bruce was overreactiving and that those who
matter will read deeper then some microsoft (and definately slashdot) post.

I am not underestimating anything :). I don't think there is any
question as to whether what Bruce does outside the SPI is important.

SIncerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Anyway, I was able to scrape enough neuron activity to extract a
> working URL for all platforms, and read them (all), so...
>
>
> Best,
> --Toni++
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:18:19AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Members of longer standing have access to spi-private and can judge this
> for themselves. I went through my communication from you, and can't
> really say I agree. We've had contact on two issues in recent time. I'd
> also like you to note that my phone number is published on my web site.

I was referring to messages on spi-board. I don't remember offhand
which, if any, were CC'd to spi-private.

-- John

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> How many of them? Why did you not offer apologies in advance?
Actually, I was distressed to find the IRC logs were not online, as I
wanted to check that the count was accurate. But I will not dispute it
at this time. And the answer might be "I messed up". We have had much
larger mess-ups, mostly concerning money.
> If elected, how will you ensure that you attend a higher proportion of meetings?
>
I have now been nudged on the issue and will keep a closer eye on it.
> This makes it sound awfully like you want to be involved in SPI so that
> you can use SPI to justify your political campaigning.
Actually, it's sort of the reverse. I want SPI and you to be more
involved in that stuff.
> What procedures will you be using to ensure that you have the backing of the member organisations?
The last time I did this, which was the W3C patent policy thing, I asked
the SPI board first.
> Which of the goals outlined in the SPI bylaws do you believe would justify this?
>
It would be education - one of the main reasons for the organization
that we gave at its formation, and to the state and tax authorities.
501(c)3 organizations may educate others about political issues. This is
the reason that organizations like EFF and Public Knowledge give. There
are some things we must avoid as a 501(c)3. We can't operate as a PAC.
> There are already lobbying organisations that exist for the purpose of fighting software patents. Does SPI really need to become another?
>
It wouldn't hurt. EFF does not directly speak for software developers.
We have our member projects, so we do. We are currently losing the
political fight for Free Software, and the fight could use more hands,
representing more different parties.
> Indeed, so I'm struggling to see what this has to do with anything...
>
Because SPI's mission can be more relevant than just managing a checkbook.
> With all due respect, SPI has very little influence on Debian right now
> and I think most developers are quite happy with that situation.
It is, however, sort of strange. SPI is their organization and a good
many DDs haven't joined. Why they should have to join separately from
being accepted as an acitve Debian contributor is beyond me.
> Would this aim not be better furthered by, say, getting involved in Debian instead of a separate organisation?
>
I gave you the social contract and it's been the right one for the
project. The activism role belongs in SPI, and Debian's role is to be a
member software project of SPI.
> And then proceeded to claim that there was a problem with the process. I'm not convinced that's civil.
>
It was posed in civil language. John's messae sure wasn't a proper
campaign announcement.
> The by-laws would appear to make it rather awkward to run the meetings in anything other than real time. How would you change this?
>
It's the law we need to concern ourselves with, since we have the power
to change the by-laws. Under the law, we are required to have one board
meeting per year. At that time, we'd delegate an Operating Committee
composed of the board members, which would do its business via email.
And we'd repeat that every year. Simple, and legal.

Thanks

Bruce

> Toni Mueller wrote:
>> I'm currently impartial about whether this would also make him a good
>> SPI president.
I'm not running for president. I have never claimed to be a good
operating officer. If you want and executive director, I'll do that. But
we do not currently have that position in the by-laws. I don't think
it's necessary right now.
> I was saying that I think Bruce was overreactiving and that those who
> matter will read deeper then some microsoft (and definately slashdot)
> post.
Unfortunately, I think one important chance we might otherwise have had
has already been closed out by this public discussion. It would further
damage it to talk about it publicly, but you are welcome to call me at
510-526-1165.

Thanks

Bruce

John Goerzen wrote:
> I was referring to messages on spi-board. I don't remember offhand
> which, if any, were CC'd to spi-private.
Maybe you should go back over the messages. I did.

Thanks

Bruce

>> What procedures will you be using to ensure that you have the backing
>> of the member organisations?
> The last time I did this, which was the W3C patent policy thing, I asked
> the SPI board first.

This is important because as new groups sign up, they are going to have
differing ideals about things like software patents.

>> Which of the goals outlined in the SPI bylaws do you believe would
>> justify this?
>>
> It would be education - one of the main reasons for the organization
> that we gave at its formation, and to the state and tax authorities.

Sounds like lobbying not education.

>> There are already lobbying organisations that exist for the purpose of
>> fighting software patents. Does SPI really need to become another?
>>
> It wouldn't hurt.

Are you kidding? If you believe so strongly in the anti-software patent,
join an existing PAC... Keep the movement focused. Don't splinter it to
the point where it's not relevant.

> EFF does not directly speak for software developers.
> We have our member projects, so we do. We are currently losing the
> political fight for Free Software, and the fight could use more hands,
> representing more different parties.
>> Indeed, so I'm struggling to see what this has to do with anything...
>>
> Because SPI's mission can be more relevant than just managing a checkbook.

You mean like this?

* To create, form and establish an organization to formulate and
provide software systems for use by the general public without charge;
* to teach and train individuals regarding the use and application
of such systems;
* to hold classes, seminars and workshops concerning the proper use
and application of computers and computer systems;
* to endeavor to monitor and improve the quality of currently
existing publicly available software;
* to support, encourage and promote the creation and development of
software available to the general public;
* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of
the Internet;
* to organize, hold and conduct meetings, discussions and forums on
contemporary issues concerning the use of computers and computer software;
* to foster, promote and increase access to software systems
available to the general public;
* to solicit, collect and otherwise raise money and to expend such
funds in furtherance of the goals and activities of the corporation;
* to aid, assist, cooperate, co-sponsor and otherwise engage in
concerted action with private, educational and governmental
organizations and associations on all issues and matters concerning the
use of computers and computer software
and generally
* to endeavor to promote, foster and advance interest in computers
and computer software by all available means and methods.

Perhaps we should focus on doing what the SPI purpose states in an
excellent manner before we try to expand our focus.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:57:19AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> Unfortunately, I think one important chance we might otherwise have had
> has already been closed out by this public discussion. It would further
> damage it to talk about it publicly, but you are welcome to call me at
> 510-526-1165.

Maybe you should learn that making seemingly ridiculous claims is going
to get you, well, ridiculed? If public criticism damages activities that
you're engaged in, then I'm afraid that standing for election is
probably about the single worst thing you could do.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:51:40AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >If elected, how will you ensure that you attend a higher proportion of
> >meetings?
> >
> I have now been nudged on the issue and will keep a closer eye on it.

If you are elected and your attendance does not improve, can we expect
you to resign?

> >This makes it sound awfully like you want to be involved in SPI so that
> >you can use SPI to justify your political campaigning.
> Actually, it's sort of the reverse. I want SPI and you to be more
> involved in that stuff.

How does that require you to be on the board? If you want to change
SPI's activities, then I think a better approach would be to convince
the board that it's worthwhile rather than sit on a board that may well
disagree with you. If you're the only pro-lobbying board member, there's
inevitably going to be friction.

> >What procedures will you be using to ensure that you have the backing of
> >the member organisations?
> The last time I did this, which was the W3C patent policy thing, I asked
> the SPI board first.

The board does not necessarily have representation from all member
organisations. I know that Postgresql has funding from bodies who would
not necessarily be happy with being associated with an anti-software
patent organisation. How would you deal with member organisations that
hold different political stances to you?

> >Which of the goals outlined in the SPI bylaws do you believe would justify
> >this?
> >
> It would be education - one of the main reasons for the organization
> that we gave at its formation, and to the state and tax authorities.
> 501(c)3 organizations may educate others about political issues. This is
> the reason that organizations like EFF and Public Knowledge give. There
> are some things we must avoid as a 501(c)3. We can't operate as a PAC.

"Education" is only mentioned in SPI's goals in the following place:

"* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of the
Internet"

I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
remit.

> >There are already lobbying organisations that exist for the purpose of
> >fighting software patents. Does SPI really need to become another?
> >
> It wouldn't hurt. EFF does not directly speak for software developers.
> We have our member projects, so we do. We are currently losing the
> political fight for Free Software, and the fight could use more hands,
> representing more different parties.

I'm not sure that that's obvious. Does having multiple groups arguing
the same general point not risk the fundamental argument being lost
amongst the less important differences? Why are you currently acting
alone, rather than in conjunction with the EFF?

> >Would this aim not be better furthered by, say, getting involved in Debian
> >instead of a separate organisation?
> >
> I gave you the social contract and it's been the right one for the
> project. The activism role belongs in SPI, and Debian's role is to be a
> member software project of SPI.

I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines
Debian's role with respect to SPI. It's certainly not SPI's job to
dictate to Debian whether or not it should engage in activism. Given the
number of times you've resigned for Debian, I certainly don't think that
you're in any position to try to argue what Debian's role should or
should not be.

> >And then proceeded to claim that there was a problem with the process. I'm
> >not convinced that's civil.
> >
> It was posed in civil language. John's messae sure wasn't a proper
> campaign announcement.

It clearly insinuated that due to John's criticism of you, you felt that
you couldn't trust him to run an election. Ignoring the fact that this
was entirely irrelevant (what with John not being secretary, and all),
there was no evidence whatsoever that personal opinions would influence
the performance of his duties. It was an entirely unwarranted attack,
and no matter how civil the language it was not a civil response.

> It's the law we need to concern ourselves with, since we have the power
> to change the by-laws. Under the law, we are required to have one board
> meeting per year. At that time, we'd delegate an Operating Committee
> composed of the board members, which would do its business via email.
> And we'd repeat that every year. Simple, and legal.

Of course, changing the by-laws would require convincing people that
mail was a better alternative to IRC. It's not obvious that you'd win.
If you didn't, and if meetings continued to be held on IRC, what would
your response be?

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:51:40AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Actually, I was distressed to find the IRC logs were not online, as I
> wanted to check that the count was accurate.

The IRC logs are actually online, linked from many of the
SPI meeting agendas dating back into 2004[1]:

http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/

Now, I agree that it's best for them to be in some other location as
well, and from what I understand that will be true on the new website,
but all board members should at least read the agendas for meetings
regardless of whether they attend each meeting.

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

[1] There seems to be some XML validation issue with a few of the oldest
ones, but the information is probably still there.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:51:40AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >How many of them? Why did you not offer apologies in advance?
> Actually, I was distressed to find the IRC logs were not online, as I

Actually, they are. Linked to from every Board agenda that is posted on
www.spi-inc.org/secretary. Look in the "minutes" section -- the full
logs are there.

But I'm *sure* you've been reading these all along, right?

> wanted to check that the count was accurate. But I will not dispute it
> at this time. And the answer might be "I messed up". We have had much
> larger mess-ups, mostly concerning money.

If you do come to the conclusion that that is the answer, you'll look a
little better to me.

> >If elected, how will you ensure that you attend a higher proportion of
> >meetings?
> >
> I have now been nudged on the issue and will keep a closer eye on it.

This is not the first time you've been nudged. There have been multiple
public and private reminders about the board meeting attendance policy
already. While they weren't directed solely at you personally, they
certainly applied more to you than anyone else.

I believe there were ones directed at you personally as well, but don't
have the spare time to grep through a bunch of mailing list archives
just now.

> It wouldn't hurt. EFF does not directly speak for software developers.
> We have our member projects, so we do. We are currently losing the

I would point out that SPI's member projects are not limited to software
developers. Consider, for instance, OFTC.

> >With all due respect, SPI has very little influence on Debian right now
> >and I think most developers are quite happy with that situation.
> It is, however, sort of strange. SPI is their organization and a good
> many DDs haven't joined. Why they should have to join separately from
> being accepted as an acitve Debian contributor is beyond me.

One very good reason is that votes across SPI membership would never
even come close to attaining quorum because most of them wouldn't vote.

> I gave you the social contract and it's been the right one for the
> project. The activism role belongs in SPI, and Debian's role is to be a

That had nothing to do with SPI. And there are numerous problems with
it anyway (one is that is specifically requires Debian to distribute
non-free software in perpetuity using the specific FTP protocol)

> It was posed in civil language. John's messae sure wasn't a proper
> campaign announcement.

That's enough of this. I resign as secretary of SPI.
.
.
.
.
(In fact, I, who have never been secretary, and was replying to your
compaign statement, not announcing it. You are responsible for your own
announcements.)

(For anyone that didn't follow the plot, I have never been secretary of
SPI, but Bruce accused me of holding that office in an earlier message.
The above remark is intended as HUMOR and didn't actually do anything)

-- John (chuckling) Goerzen

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> This is important because as new groups sign up, they are going to have
> differing ideals about things like software patents.
Actually, I think that a pro-software-patenting organization would be in
conflict with SPI's stated purpose for existence, which is to build,
promote, and educate about Free Software. Software patents are the very
best way I know of to promote Free Software.
>
> Sounds like lobbying not education.
Some of it. But SPI can't, for example, donate to a political campaign
as lobbyists often do. We'd lose our 501(c)3 status.
>
> Are you kidding? If you believe so strongly in the anti-software
> patent, join an existing PAC... Keep the movement focused. Don't
> splinter it to the point where it's not relevant.
1. There is no such PAC today. That is a problem we need to work on, but
it's outside of the 501(c)3 guidelines.
2. Saving Free Software from software patenting is a heck of a lot more
relevant than managing a checkbook.
>
>
> You mean like this?
> * to support, encourage and promote the creation and development
> of software available to the general public;
> * to organize, hold and conduct meetings, discussions and forums
> on contemporary issues concerning the use of computers and computer
> software;
> * to foster, promote and increase access to software systems
> available to the general public;
> * to aid, assist, cooperate, co-sponsor and otherwise engage in
> concerted action with private, educational and governmental
> organizations and associations on all issues and matters concerning
> the use of computers and computer software
> and generally
Yes, exactly like that.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:43:17AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> Actually, I think that a pro-software-patenting organization would be in
> conflict with SPI's stated purpose for existence, which is to build,
> promote, and educate about Free Software. Software patents are the very
> best way I know of to promote Free Software.

I can't find anywhere on the website or in the by-laws where SPI's
purpose for existence is defined as being to "build, promote, and
educate about Free Software". Can you provide a cite?

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> This is important because as new groups sign up, they are going to have
>> differing ideals about things like software patents.
> Actually, I think that a pro-software-patenting organization would be in
> conflict with SPI's stated purpose for existence, which is to build,
> promote, and educate about Free Software. Software patents are the very
> best way I know of to promote Free Software.

You are missing the point :). The organization is not relevant here. It
is the companies that give to the organization. PostgreSQL in particular
has a large portfolio of very large companies that would frown on us
taking any public, political stance in that regard.

>> Sounds like lobbying not education.
> Some of it. But SPI can't, for example, donate to a political campaign
> as lobbyists often do. We'd lose our 501(c)3 status.
>> Are you kidding? If you believe so strongly in the anti-software
>> patent, join an existing PAC... Keep the movement focused. Don't
>> splinter it to the point where it's not relevant.
> 1. There is no such PAC today. That is a problem we need to work on, but
> it's outside of the 501(c)3 guidelines.

We as in the FOSS community? Or we as in SPI. I am with you on the former.

> 2. Saving Free Software from software patenting is a heck of a lot more
> relevant than managing a checkbook.
>>
>> You mean like this?
>> * to support, encourage and promote the creation and development
>> of software available to the general public;
>> * to organize, hold and conduct meetings, discussions and forums
>> on contemporary issues concerning the use of computers and computer
>> software;
>> * to foster, promote and increase access to software systems
>> available to the general public;
>> * to aid, assist, cooperate, co-sponsor and otherwise engage in
>> concerted action with private, educational and governmental
>> organizations and associations on all issues and matters concerning
>> the use of computers and computer software
>> and generally
> Yes, exactly like that.
>

Which does not fall under the pervue of what you are trying to sell :).
Lets focus on those first, at least in terms of the SPI.

Joshua D. Drake

> Thanks
>
> Bruce

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

<quote who="Bruce Perens" date="Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:10:24PM -0700">
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >On the other hand, it got people to read it. I doubt anyone read mine.
> >;-)
> >
> And the way my luck has been running, it'll be on Slashdot or LWN in 15
> minutes.
>
> And that will make my work evangelizing government and other folks
> outside of the community harder, because we have just given CompTIA and
> Microsoft excellent ammunition to use in FUDing whether or not the
> community even cares about the things I'm talking about.

For the record, I care a whole lot about the things that you're talking
about. I appreciate your work and you have my *full* support in your
work against software patents.

But I don't really see how a seat on the SPI board helps you oppose them
more effectively and I do think that the lack of an active, interested,
and involved board has the potential to hurt or limit SPI. I think that
what SPI needs now is an active board that is willing to put real time
and effort into the organization.

I care a whole lot about SPI -- probably as much as you do. I also
decided not to run this year because I thought that some new energy and
the potential for more actively engaged board members would do the
organization some good. You can read about my own decision not to run
again this year here:

http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/freesoftware/20060705-00.html

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako(at)debian(dot)org
http://mako.cc/

<quote who="Bruce Perens" date="Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:51:40AM -0700">
> >What procedures will you be using to ensure that you have the backing of
> >the member organisations?
>
> The last time I did this, which was the W3C patent policy thing, I asked
> the SPI board first.

For the record, you and anyone else that feels that they are in a
position to represent SPI in a way that would further the organization's
aims are welcome to approach the board to do this. You do not need to be
a board member or an officer to help SPI pursue its agenda or to
represent its interests.

> It is, however, sort of strange. SPI is their organization and a good
> many DDs haven't joined. Why they should have to join separately from
> being accepted as an acitve Debian contributor is beyond me.

This has been suggested and many Debian developers decided that they
didn't want to do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty good
reason.

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako(at)debian(dot)org
http://mako.cc/

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If you are elected and your attendance does not improve, can we expect
> you to resign?
>
OK. Campaign promise.
> The board does not necessarily have representation from all member
> organisations. I know that Postgresql has funding from bodies who would
> not necessarily be happy with being associated with an anti-software
> patent organisation. How would you deal with member organisations that
> hold different political stances to you?
>
SPI has contributing members, and they vote. Funding sponsors don't
vote. I am absolutely sure how SPI's contributing members would vote on
this issue, and pretty sure how Postgresql's would vote too. Postgresql
is a project that is particularly threatened by software patenting.

> "* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of the
> Internet"
>
I went over the by-law missions in another email. A number of them fit.
> I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
> remit.
>
Let's not call it lobbying. Some of that can't be done within a 501(c)3,
and some can. It's education.
> I'm not sure that that's obvious. Does having multiple groups arguing
> the same general point not risk the fundamental argument being lost
> amongst the less important differences?
Actually, it creates a constituency. One of the current problems of EFF
is that they are sometimes seen as alone in this.
> I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines Debian's role with respect to SPI.
I don't know why that would be insulting. The social contract doesn't
have to define anything about SPI, it defines a good mission for Debian.
> Given the number of times you've resigned for Debian
Once? Please stop beating dead horses of 1998.
> It clearly insinuated that due to John's criticism of you, you felt that you couldn't trust him to run an election.
It was improper process for an election. Especially the posting on
spi-general before my platform was posted there. I did not write
anything about trust.

> Of course, changing the by-laws would require convincing people that
> mail was a better alternative to IRC.
Our meetings are far outside of the by-laws right now. Read article 4.
But I would not have to change the by-laws to hold most meetings over email.
> It's not obvious that you'd win.
> If you didn't, and if meetings continued to be held on IRC, what would
> your response be?
>
Attend them.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:19:26AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > It clearly insinuated that due to John's criticism of you, you felt that you couldn't trust him to run an election.
> It was improper process for an election. Especially the posting on
> spi-general before my platform was posted there. I did not write
> anything about trust.

OK, first off, you do realize by now that I am not secretary and have no
involvement whatsoever with the election process, right? If not, please
investigate www.spi-inc.org/corporate/board.

Having established that, I have no clue what you are talking about with
"process". You sent your campaign statement to the secretary, who
posted it to the website like he said he would [1].

Nobody ever promised to post your platform to a mailing list on your
behalf. If you wanted it posted on a mailing list, you should have
posted it yourself.

Why do you call me on the carpet for replying to a public document about
a candidate? Why do you expect me to post your election document to a
mailing list? I am under no obligation to do that, haven't for any
other candidate, never said I would, and don't intend to. Candidates
can post as they see fit. I am not your secretary.

In fact, *nobody* said they would post your document to a mailing list
as far as I can tell.

Everything I have said in this thread is as "SPI contributing member"
only, and I said that up front. Yours here is the first complaint I
have heard from anyone about my objectivity as a member of the SPI board
and president, and frankly, I am not too concerned about it since you
still seem to think I'm secretary.

[1] http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2006/000132.html

-- John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:19:26AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > "* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of the
> > Internet"
> >
> I went over the by-law missions in another email. A number of them fit.

I quite strongly disagree.

> > I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
> > remit.
> >
> Let's not call it lobbying. Some of that can't be done within a 501(c)3,
> and some can. It's education.

Education of a sort that is not part of SPI's currently stated goals.
Let's be quite clear, here. You want to be elected so that you can get
SPI to do something that it currently doesn't do, something that's
outside its currently listed goals and something that several people
have expressed disquiet over. You've also admitted that you could do
this without being involved in SPI.

> > I'm not sure that that's obvious. Does having multiple groups arguing
> > the same general point not risk the fundamental argument being lost
> > amongst the less important differences?
> Actually, it creates a constituency. One of the current problems of EFF
> is that they are sometimes seen as alone in this.

Excellent. We can put out a press release saying that SPI wholeheartedly
endorses the EFF's efforts in this field, which ought to help in that
respect.

> > I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines Debian's role with respect to SPI.
> I don't know why that would be insulting. The social contract doesn't
> have to define anything about SPI, it defines a good mission for Debian.

I find the idea of you defining Debian's role in the SPI/Debian
relationship insulting. If there is to be a determination of what
Debian's role is, that's something that should be discussed with Debian
rather than having you unilaterally stating that advocacy should be left
up to SPI. It just ends up sounding like "I know better".

> > Given the number of times you've resigned for Debian
> Once? Please stop beating dead horses of 1998.

You appear to have attempted to do so on at least four separate
occasions.

> > Of course, changing the by-laws would require convincing people that
> > mail was a better alternative to IRC.
> Our meetings are far outside of the by-laws right now. Read article 4.
> But I would not have to change the by-laws to hold most meetings over email.

I can't see any realistic way of conforming to article 6 in anything
other than a real-time discussion medium.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> But I don't really see how a seat on the SPI board helps you oppose them more effectively
It's important to get SPI and its members and especially its board more
involved in issues. This is not just about getting them to help ME to
oppose anything, it's getting them to do it.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 12:08:49PM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I care a whole lot about SPI -- probably as much as you do. I also
> decided not to run this year because I thought that some new energy and
> the potential for more actively engaged board members would do the
> organization some good. You can read about my own decision not to run
> again this year here:
>
> http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/freesoftware/20060705-00.html

I'd like to second everything Mako said here. He wrote a very nice
piece there, that sums up some of the things I was thinking about also.
That article, plus time constraints I see coming up this fall, is
probably what convinced me not to run this year as well.

Mako, you've done a lot of good work for SPI, and I hope you'll be back
on the board someday.

-- John

John Goerzen wrote:
> Why do you call me on the carpet for replying to a public document about a candidate?
Because you did it before the document was made public. You knew that it
would shortly become public, and you decided to jump the gun and make
the first public posting of it in what really seems to me to have been a
pejorative manner.

Thanks

Bruce

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I find the idea of you defining Debian's role in the SPI/Debian
> relationship insulting.
Well, the social contract does not attempt to define that role, and
anything else I posted is discussion, not an order. You're going
overboard to find it insulting.
> I can't see any realistic way of conforming to article 6 in anything other than a real-time discussion medium.
>
It would look a bit contrived, but could be done. Currently, it would
only have to be done quarterly.

Thanks

Bruce

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>> But I don't really see how a seat on the SPI board helps you oppose them more effectively
> It's important to get SPI and its members and especially its board more
> involved in issues. This is not just about getting them to help ME to
> oppose anything, it's getting them to do it.

It is NOT important to get the SPI to do it, until the SPI by-laws state
that it is part of the purpose.

You are mixing your personal goals and the goals of the SPI. They are
not one and the same, nor are they inter-related. The SPI goals are
clearly stated in it's documented purpose.

You should be following that purpose when dealing with or about the SPI.

If you want that purpose to change, then you need to propose that as a
separate agenda item at which point a vote can be called as dictated by
the by-laws.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-private mailing list
> Spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:44:32AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Because you did it before the document was made public.

Given that the email in question links to the canonical location of the
platforms, and given that your platform was there at the point where the
mail was sent, this is quite clearly untrue.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

Please would an -admin close this thread down on one list or the other?

Matthew Garrett <mjg59-spi(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org>
> [...] If you're the only pro-lobbying board member, there's
> inevitably going to be friction.

I don't think that's true. There'll be tension, but friction
is not necessary - it just seems to happen a lot around here.

> "Education" is only mentioned in SPI's goals in the following place: [...]
> I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
> remit.

Anti-swpat lobbying does seem helpful to several of its goals,
in my opinion. Whether it is the best org to do it is debatable.

> > I gave you the social contract and it's been the right one for the
> > project. The activism role belongs in SPI, and Debian's role is to be a
> > member software project of SPI.
>
> I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines
> Debian's role with respect to SPI. [...]

It's in the constitution. I think there's no sense flaming Bruce
for naming the wrong debian foundation document.

Quite a few interesting questions asked, though. Anyone going
to start hustings for the other candidates? Like, what are
your promises and why did you play the "I am famous" card?

Still glad I didn't stand,
--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Bruce,

> All that said, my admiration of Josh for taking the job on remains
> undiminished. It's the hot seat.

Thanks, Bruce. Frankly, though, I don't *want* the job -- I don't
think anyone does. I just recognize that "someone" has to do it, and
this year "someone" is me.

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco 415-752-2500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> ...
> If not, please investigate
> ...
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/board

A little off-topic, but the "last modified" date on that page
of March 2002 (and lack of any other date information) does not
inspire confidence in its chances of being up to date. Similarly,
the main page having the latest "news" item labelled as "12 Apr 2005"
makes SPI look like an unmaintained, perhaps defunct project.
I'd recommend removing that news section entirely if it is not
going to be updated, and putting some term dates on the board page.

I for one would certainly like to see a board member platform that
involves keeping our website up to date and looking decent.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607141249
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEt8xGvJuQZxSWSsgRArT7AJ9IlcuOGiXRFwPQ3td3FbS2q1xHHQCeK5M5
/x0HSGDvbraetFUnzNVd2c0=
=aKZJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:50:01AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I find the idea of you defining Debian's role in the SPI/Debian
> > relationship insulting.
> Well, the social contract does not attempt to define that role, and
> anything else I posted is discussion, not an order. You're going
> overboard to find it insulting.

"The activism role belongs in SPI, and Debian's role is to be a
member software project of SPI."

That's a statement, not discussion. Strangely enough, I do find it
insulting to be told what Debian's role is by somebody outside the
project. I suspect you'd be somewhat upset if I said "Bruce's role is to
sit in the corner and say nothing".

> > I can't see any realistic way of conforming to article 6 in anything other than a real-time discussion medium.
> >
> It would look a bit contrived, but could be done. Currently, it would
> only have to be done quarterly.

So either there'd be a contrived email discussion that would be
carefully formatted to fit article 6 (making any actual discussion
horribly awkward), or you'd have to change the by-laws. Realistically,
the second of these is your only real option.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:44:32AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> Because you did it before the document was made public.
>>
>
> Given that the email in question links to the canonical location of the
> platforms, and given that your platform was there at the point where the
> mail was sent, this is quite clearly untrue.
>
I think he linked to my platform URL before it got a link from the vote
page. I was watching for it to go up.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 05:54:40PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59-spi(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org>
> > > I gave you the social contract and it's been the right one for the
> > > project. The activism role belongs in SPI, and Debian's role is to be a
> > > member software project of SPI.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines
> > Debian's role with respect to SPI. [...]
>
> It's in the constitution. I think there's no sense flaming Bruce
> for naming the wrong debian foundation document.

The constitution does define the relationship between SPI and Debian
(though certainly not as Bruce described), but the distinction is
relevant here - Bruce was heavily involved in the writing of the social
contract, but the consitution was mostly written by Ian Jackson after
Bruce had resigned.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

MJ Ray wrote:
> Like, what are your promises and why did you play the "I am famous" card?
>
I don't believe that any of the candidates said they were famous. I
didn't. And I generally do not refer to myself as famous. This is a card
that gets played in the audience's head where I can't control it.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:44:32AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > Why do you call me on the carpet for replying to a public document about a candidate?
> Because you did it before the document was made public. You knew that it
> would shortly become public, and you decided to jump the gun and make
> the first public posting of it in what really seems to me to have been a
> pejorative manner.

No, I did not. Did you see the URL I mentioned at the top of the
document? It had been public there for *HOURS* before I posted my
message, I believe. That URL was the announced URL where all such
documents would be placed, too.

-- John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:44:32AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > Why do you call me on the carpet for replying to a public document about a candidate?
> Because you did it before the document was made public. You knew that it
> would shortly become public, and you decided to jump the gun and make
> the first public posting of it in what really seems to me to have been a
> pejorative manner.

According to Apache, your platform was last modified on the public
server at:

Last-Modified: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:07:38 GMT

It may well have been live before that. I don't know.

My message was sent at 2:09 GMT, fully an hour after it had been last
modified. I wasn't just sitting there waiting for it to be there,
either. I saw it was, and posted about it.

Once again, I have no idea where you get your conspiratorial notions
from. Besides, how would I have known the URL if it wasn't public?

telnet www.spi-inc.org http
Trying 193.201.201.105...
Connected to www.spi-inc.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD /secretary/votes/vote5/nominations/BrucePerens.txt HTTP/1.1
Host: www.spi-inc.org
Connection: close

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:11:58 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.54 (Debian GNU/Linux) PHP/4.3.10-16 mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7e
Last-Modified: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:07:38 GMT
ETag: "1741eb-80a-4e74ca80"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 2058
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain

Connection closed by foreign host.

For part 2, see
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2006-July/001879.html
"Fri Jul 14 02:09:10 UTC 2006"

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> ...
>> If not, please investigate
>> ...
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/board
>
> A little off-topic, but the "last modified" date on that page
> of March 2002 (and lack of any other date information) does not

Hey Greg!

> inspire confidence in its chances of being up to date. Similarly,
> the main page having the latest "news" item labelled as "12 Apr 2005"
> makes SPI look like an unmaintained, perhaps defunct project.
> I'd recommend removing that news section entirely if it is not
> going to be updated, and putting some term dates on the board page.
>
> I for one would certainly like to see a board member platform that
> involves keeping our website up to date and looking decent.

I also brought this up last night on the channel. Apparently there is a
new website that is due in about a month that will make life easier.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> - --
> Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
> PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607141249
> http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFEt8xGvJuQZxSWSsgRArT7AJ9IlcuOGiXRFwPQ3td3FbS2q1xHHQCeK5M5
> /x0HSGDvbraetFUnzNVd2c0=
> =aKZJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

John Goerzen wrote:
> According to Apache, your platform was last modified on the public
>
Not my platform. The vote page at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/votes/vote5/nominations/ . It appeared
to me that your email went out before that URL got a link from the vote
page. It certainly went out before the Secretary's email.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:50:14AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >>But I don't really see how a seat on the SPI board helps you oppose them
> >>more effectively
> >It's important to get SPI and its members and especially its board more
> >involved in issues. This is not just about getting them to help ME to
> >oppose anything, it's getting them to do it.
>
> It is NOT important to get the SPI to do it, until the SPI by-laws state
> that it is part of the purpose.

More importantly, such goals may be incompatible with SPI's current
non-profit and tax-exempt status....

But that to me is a good reason not to vote for Bruce this year....

- Ted

Bruce Perens <bruce(at)perens(dot)com> writes:
> Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>> But I don't really see how a seat on the SPI board helps you oppose
> them more effectively
> It's important to get SPI and its members and especially its board more
> involved in issues. This is not just about getting them to help ME to
> oppose anything, it's getting them to do it.

Sadly, one of the board members [1] who is actively working against
software patents has failed to get the SPI members and board more
involved, for example by attending board meetings.

Sorry, if you're saying that you want SPI to take a more prominent
position against software patents [2], you should have tried to do this
as board member. That hasn't happened, so I see no reason to vote for
you.

Marc

Footnotes:
[1] Bruce Perens
[2] Which I don't believe is something SPI should do, simply because
SPI has another role to play
--
BOFH #312:
incompatible bit-registration operators

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:19:36AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > According to Apache, your platform was last modified on the public
> >
> Not my platform. The vote page at
> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/votes/vote5/nominations/ . It appeared
> to me that your email went out before that URL got a link from the vote
> page. It certainly went out before the Secretary's email.

No, it didn't. I went to the vote page, and clicked on your name. By
the miracle of modern computing, your platform magically shimmered into
place on my screen! Not even a puff of smoke! Just a click and it was
THERE! Spooky, I tell you! I'm sure this same process was repeated at
tens of computers around the world!

And, if memory serves, the Secretary's last e-mail about anything
vote-related was two weeks ago, mind you. He certainly hasn't posted
anything on mailing lists about any specific candidates, and never said
he would. So, I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, I tire of this game. I have posted more than ample evidence
that it was public when I posted, and I know that it was because I read
it in public when I posted, at the link the secretary gave. I have no
idea where you are getting your notions from (a stale cache?), but I
don't care enough about it to continue on this pointless discussion
anymore.

-- John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:40:02AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > But I don't really see how a seat on the SPI board helps you oppose them more effectively
> It's important to get SPI and its members and especially its board more
> involved in issues. This is not just about getting them to help ME to
> oppose anything, it's getting them to do it.

The question is WHICH issues.

Is SPI about:

* Helping Free Software projects get established

* Helping Free Software projects defend themselves legally

* Helping Free Software projects receive and manage donations

* Encouring Free Software developers in any way we can

Or about political advocacy?

I really think SPI is about the former, and there is a LOT we can do
there. Shouldn't our limited resources be spent on our actual mission,
and leave the lobbying to the lobbyists?

(And of course, there is a quite real legal question about all you're
suggesting.)

-- John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:19:04AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >I for one would certainly like to see a board member platform that
> >involves keeping our website up to date and looking decent.
>
> I also brought this up last night on the channel. Apparently there is a
> new website that is due in about a month that will make life easier.
>

Hopefully, this should be available in less than a month :)

Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li B345BDD3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I also brought this up last night on the channel. Apparently
> there is a new website that is due in about a month that will
> make life easier.

That's all well and good, but I've been on too many a project
where "the next version of the website will fix everything"
is used in place of making small but important changes such
as the ones I mentioned. If it's a matter of time, I'd be more
than happy to chip in. At the bare minimum, let's get the old
News removed from the main page. I'll cc this one to the www list,
but the low traffic on that list does not encourage me to move the
conversation entirely there.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607141434
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEt+PdvJuQZxSWSsgRAlZ+AKD2buPjI1/tCWkBhqilHvLe6r20iACgl9U9
XoBiuomnnL8CD0aOiy8ivwU=
=xe2K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>
> That's all well and good, but I've been on too many a project
> where "the next version of the website will fix everything"
> is used in place of making small but important changes such
> as the ones I mentioned. If it's a matter of time, I'd be more
> than happy to chip in. At the bare minimum, let's get the old
> News removed from the main page. I'll cc this one to the www list,
> but the low traffic on that list does not encourage me to move the
> conversation entirely there.

Greg,

http://www.spi-inc.org/zope/

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Matthew Garrett <mjg59-spi(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org>
> Education of a sort that is not part of SPI's currently stated goals.
> Let's be quite clear, here. [...]

Indeed, let's! Goals/Purposes are what SPI is trying to achieve,
but methods/powers are how it may do it. If board members
judge that education about swpat is within the general powers
listed in Section 202 of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c76/a3.html (can that
be a weblink on the new site's copy of the bylaws, please?),
then it's fine. As long as that education is not encouraging
unlawful behaviour, I can't see how it exceeds SPI's powers.

Matthew Garrett helped to form another organisation (DUS)
which I think is rather confused about purposes and powers,
so I'd not pay much attention to his complaints about them.

[...]
> I can't see any realistic way of conforming to article 6 in anything
> other than a real-time discussion medium.

Do meetings currently conform to article 6, JOOI?

--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:25:46PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59-spi(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org>
> > Education of a sort that is not part of SPI's currently stated goals.
> > Let's be quite clear, here. [...]
>
> Indeed, let's! Goals/Purposes are what SPI is trying to achieve,
> but methods/powers are how it may do it.

I'm not saying that it's unlawful or impossible for SPI to carry out
these acts. I'm saying that it's not part of its currently stated goals,
and that those are the goals that most of the membership (presumably)
currently agree with. It's not at all obvious that changing those goals
would meet with the agreement of the membership, either people or
projects.

> Matthew Garrett helped to form another organisation (DUS)
> which I think is rather confused about purposes and powers,
> so I'd not pay much attention to his complaints about them.

I was present when the Debian UK society was formed, but played no part
in its formation. I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything.

> > I can't see any realistic way of conforming to article 6 in anything
> > other than a real-time discussion medium.
>
> Do meetings currently conform to article 6, JOOI?

>From the looks of it, broadly but not precisely.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

Matthew Garrett <mjg59-spi(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:25:46PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Indeed, let's! Goals/Purposes are what SPI is trying to achieve,
> > but methods/powers are how it may do it. [...]
>
> I'm not saying that it's unlawful or impossible for SPI to carry out
> these acts. I'm saying that it's not part of its currently stated goals,
> and that those are the goals that most of the membership (presumably)
> currently agree with. It's not at all obvious that changing those goals
> would meet with the agreement of the membership, either people or
> projects.

The goals don't need to change.

Arguing something shouldn't be done because it's not a stated
goal is rather like arguing I shouldn't get on a train
because my goal is being in Somerset, not travelling to it.
I think it's unhelpful and obscures your real disagreement.

It may well be that we disagree on SPI's travel method, but
that's what the directors are empowered to choose, for better
or worse (trademarks!). If you want to change their powers so
all associated projects or all contributing members must agree
on each use of power, propose that instead.

Not-for-profits do lots of things which aren't stated goals,
such as holding board meetings, but they don't need to be goals.
They're not why SPI's here. The goals are where you're going,
not how you get there. I don't think anyone is advocating
making SPI into a for-hire lobbying firm, so lobbying is a
method, not a goal in itself.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Ok, I have been avoiding this thread like the plague, because it
looks to me like a rathole. But this is just too much:

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:43:17AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> 2. Saving Free Software from software patenting is a heck of a lot more
> relevant than managing a checkbook.

No, it is not.

The purpose of SPI, as near as I can tell -- and the only reason I
could (and did) support the PostgreSQL project joining -- is exactly
that sort of supporting activity. It is _extremely important_ for
projects to be able to rely on good, solid, but admittedly less
Richard the Lion-heart activities as competent management of the
finances, orderly and organised co-ordination, &c. Glory it ain't, I
admit; but any empire that worked and lasted did so not only because
of glorious battles, but also because of good administration. The
same is true of any large social project.

Frankly, I'm more than a little alarmed that anyone who proposes to
have a direct role in managing SPI's activities is willing to dismiss
those day to day issues. I'm rather more interested in someone
saving SPI projects from penury, vainglory, and mismanagement than I
am in someone who wants to save all of Free Software from all
software patents. Indeed, unpacking what the latter might mean could
absorb whole organisations whose business it is. I suggest that
perhaps such organisations would welcome contributions of energy and
knowledge to their goals. They're good and important goals; but
they're not the only worthy ones.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:43:17AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> 2. Saving Free Software from software patenting is a heck of a lot more
>> relevant than managing a checkbook.
>>
First, Andrew, you are quoting someone else, not me. I did not write that.

Second, I have made it clear that I feel the Treasurer's job is very
important and that proper money handling is the first priority of the
organization.

Thanks

Bruce

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 03:11:28PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> First, Andrew, you are quoting someone else, not me. I did not write that.

>From <44B7BB95(dot)4010309(at)perens(dot)com>:

1. There is no such PAC today. That is a problem we need to work on, but
it's outside of the 501(c)3 guidelines.
2. Saving Free Software from software patenting is a heck of a lot more
relevant than managing a checkbook.

Is it really too much to ask for you to remember what you've actually
written?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 2. Saving Free Software from software patenting is a heck of a lot more
> relevant than managing a checkbook.
Oops, you're right.

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 03:11:28PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:

> First, Andrew, you are quoting someone else, not me. I did not write that.

Someone else already corrected you about this.

> Second, I have made it clear that I feel the Treasurer's job is very
> important and that proper money handling is the first priority of the
> organization.

"More important" means what it means. Proper money handling can't be
the first priority if something else is more important.

I will not continue to discuss this in this thread: I think I have
made my argument, and people may take it or leave it as they wish.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
Information security isn't a technological problem. It's an economics
problem.
--Bruce Schneier

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Someone else already corrected you about this.
>
Yes, I lost the thread. Sorry. People make mistakes.
> "More important" means what it means. Proper money handling can't be the first priority if something else is more important.
OK. Well, I've had more time to think about this. A better way to state
it would be that proper money handling is essential, but it is a means
of achieving the goals of the organization, not an end in itself.

The goal of SPI, stated as briefly as possible is /to promote Free
Software./ Take a look at the definition of /promote/ at
http://promote.bruceref.com/ (yes, it will work that way for any word in
the dictionary).

The goal of SPI is not /to manage money. /Indeed, if managing money was
not essential to the promotion of Free Software, we would not do it.

The most important thing we've done about money management in the last
several years has been to hire a professional book-keeper. The next
important task for the coming year, IMO, is hiring a CPA. Doing these
jobs with officers has had a less-than-desirable success rate, and we've
had enough different treasurers to tell it's not a problem with just one
of them. The one treasurer who actually was able to outsource the task
of book-keeping has been the most successful one so far.

And since the only path to effective money management for SPI seems to
be oursourcing, it's pretty clear that money management is not going to
be the major occupation of SPI's board.

Thanks

Bruce

Bruce,

> The goal of SPI is not /to manage money. /Indeed, if managing money was
> not essential to the promotion of Free Software, we would not do it.

The problem with engaging in any political activity is that it amounts to a
change of direction for SPI. For the last three years, at least, SPI has
been strictly a "sustain and support" organization for its projects. That
is, write checks, provide legal advice, hold assets ... but don't tell anyone
what to do, or jump in where you're not invited.

One needs only look at the recently slashdotted argument over the JVM in
Debian licensing to see that a large portion of the Debian community would
react strongly against any political initiatives originating from SPI. The
newer projects which joined probably also joined (I know PostgreSQL did)
under the understanding that SPI was there to support but not direct.

So, overall, I think that if you want SPI to become more political, you're
going to need to use a considerable amount of diplomacy and persuasion to get
a consensus of opinion behind you.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)

Josh Berkus wrote:
> For the last three years, at least, SPI has been strictly a "sustain and support" organization for its projects.
Yes. But I have participated in an authorized political activity for SPI
before those three years: the W3C Patent Policy development.

The reason we haven't been doing anything but manage money for several
years is that it became obvious at the time that we were failing to
manage money. But we should not be in extremis mode forever.
> One needs only look at the recently slashdotted argument over the JVM in Debian licensing to see that a large portion of the Debian community would react strongly against any political initiatives originating from SPI.
Not the software patenting one. I'm sure we have a plurality on that issue.
> The newer projects which joined probably also joined (I know PostgreSQL did) under the understanding that SPI was there to support but not direct.
They don't want SPI to direct their project. I don't think there is a
problem with SPI directing some common efforts on behalf of all of its
projects. Indeed, it couldn't operate without doing that.

Thanks

Bruce

>> The newer projects which joined probably also joined (I know PostgreSQL did) under the understanding that SPI was there to support but not direct.
> They don't want SPI to direct their project. I don't think there is a
> problem with SPI directing some common efforts on behalf of all of its
> projects. Indeed, it couldn't operate without doing that.

By having SPI join the political fray directly you are indirectly
stating that all the projects that are under its umbrella somehow agree
with the direction that the SPI is taking.

That will be a problem. It will be a bigger problem as more projects
join, assuming you want more projects to join.

The long and short is there is no common effort except in the most
extreme and broadest of sense.

There are fundamental and almost theological differences between just
BSD and GPL. Do you really think you can heard that many different cats
into even the remote possibility of a common effort?

Case in point, the BSD License is not GPL compatible. Debian believes
that everything should be Free (in the FSF sense and even more extreme
sometimes). BSD believes that true freedom is not limiting ANY on
freedoms on the code, including close sourcing it.

I don't bring this up to start a license war, frankly I think that both
licenses have a very important role to play. However it does underline
significant differences in ideology within just the FOSS movement.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Bruce,

> Not the software patenting one. I'm sure we have a plurality on that
> issue.

A plurality isn't good enough. A clear consensus is what you need -- since
SPI is now composed of disparate parts, you can't take action which would
affect all member organizations just on the basis of a 50.5% majority.
You need buy-in from *all* constituent groups individually, as well as a
majority of members. Otherwise, the associated organizations who just
joined will leave.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Acting PostgreSQL Liason, SPI
PostgreSQL Core Team

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> By having SPI join the political fray directly you are indirectly
> stating that all the projects that are under its umbrella somehow
> agree with the direction that the SPI is taking.
It doesn't have to be indirect. We could take a poll. We'd certainly win
on the software patenting issue, and probably on a number of others.
> That will be a problem. It will be a bigger problem as more projects
> join, assuming you want more projects to join.
Joining is a sort of vote, too.
> The long and short is there is no common effort except in the most
> extreme and broadest of sense.
I can't agree. We have one issue that is poised to sink every one of our
projects if it goes badly for us, and maybe PostgreSQL first. Common
effort on that one would not be a problem.
> There are fundamental and almost theological differences between just
> BSD and GPL.
I created the definition of their common ground - in the DFSG / OSD, and
9 years later that has stood very well.
> Do you really think you can heard that many different cats into even
> the remote possibility of a common effort?
I've done it a few times so far. It's not possible for everything, but
significant common ground exists.
> Case in point, the BSD License is not GPL compatible.
I guess you didn't know, but you're arguing licensing with an Open
Source licensing expert who advises attorneys on just these issues.
Motorola, NCR, NTT, Philips, HP, Merrill Lynch have all used my services.

Of course the BSD is GPL compatible, even FSF and Richard say so. Maybe
you're talking about licenses with the old BSD advertising clause, which
even Apache has given up. The philosophy behind the two licenses is
different, and that is beyond this discussion.
> Debian believes that everything should be Free
Debian's social contract and it's more complicated than that, and you're
arguing with the person who created it. And I'm not sure you are
portraying what the BSD camp believes properly. But that is for another
discussion.
> I don't bring this up to start a license war, frankly I think that
> both licenses have a very important role to play. However it does
> underline significant differences in ideology within just the FOSS
> movement.
Yes, but Joshua, we are talking about stuff I've been working on for at
least 11 years.

Thanks

Bruce

Josh Berkus wrote:
> A plurality isn't good enough.
>
So, you're saying that PostgreSQL would leave if we became more active
on the software patent issue? I'm sorry, but I think that's absurd. It's
their biggest challenge for the future.

Thanks

Bruce

Bruce,

> So, you're saying that PostgreSQL would leave if we became more active
> on the software patent issue? I'm sorry, but I think that's absurd. It's
> their biggest challenge for the future.

I'm saying that we would need buy-in from PostgreSQL, OVF, OFTC, Drupal,
gnuStep, etc. as member projects, *as well as* a majority of Debian
members before proceeding. On patents or any other issue which doesn't
fall under "sustain & support".

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:11:32AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The most important thing we've done about money management in the last
> several years has been to hire a professional book-keeper. The next
> important task for the coming year, IMO, is hiring a CPA. Doing these

First off, SPI already HAS a relationship with a CPA. Please google
for cpa site:spi-inc.org. The board also authorized this while you
were on it. In short, between our legal counsel and bookeepeing firm,
plus that CPA, we have everything taken care of that a CPA might need
to do, plus advice on what needs to go to a CPA and what to give to one.

You don't hire an expensive CPA to do basic bookkeeping and daily mail
processing, which it sounds like you've been trying to suggest we do.

> jobs with officers has had a less-than-desirable success rate, and we've
> had enough different treasurers to tell it's not a problem with just one

I don't recall an officer ever doing the sort of thing a CPA would
(file taxes and the like). Why would you have SPI hire a CPA to do
bookkeeper's work? The bookkeeper is to take the load off the
officers.

-- John

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> By having SPI join the political fray directly you are indirectly
>> stating that all the projects that are under its umbrella somehow
>> agree with the direction that the SPI is taking.

> It doesn't have to be indirect. We could take a poll. We'd certainly win
> on the software patenting issue, and probably on a number of others.
>> That will be a problem. It will be a bigger problem as more projects
>> join, assuming you want more projects to join.

O.k. we take a poll. 54% of members agree... what do you do about the
other 46%?

> Joining is a sort of vote, too.
>> The long and short is there is no common effort except in the most
>> extreme and broadest of sense.
> I can't agree. We have one issue that is poised to sink every one of our
> projects if it goes badly for us, and maybe PostgreSQL first. Common
> effort on that one would not be a problem.

I am sure you believe that.

>> There are fundamental and almost theological differences between just
>> BSD and GPL.
> I created the definition of their common ground - in the DFSG / OSD, and
> 9 years later that has stood very well.

Your point. I wasn't arguing that?

>> Case in point, the BSD License is not GPL compatible.
> I guess you didn't know, but you're arguing licensing with an Open
> Source licensing expert who advises attorneys on just these issues.
> Motorola, NCR, NTT, Philips, HP, Merrill Lynch have all used my services.

I know exactly who you are. I also deal with some very large companies
when it comes to licensing issues including Time Warner, ADP,
Macrovision, and NY Post.

Does that make you feel better? I could throw some more big names out
there if you like.

> Of course the BSD is GPL compatible, even FSF and Richard say so. Maybe
> you're talking about licenses with the old BSD advertising clause, which
> even Apache has given up. The philosophy behind the two licenses is
> different, and that is beyond this discussion.

I was speaking about the following:

I have PostgreSQL, I add library A to PostgreSQL which happens to be
GPL. I can no longer close source PostgreSQL without removing library A.

That is the compatibility I was speaking about.

>> Debian believes that everything should be Free
> Debian's social contract and it's more complicated than that, and you're
> arguing with the person who created it. And I'm not sure you are
> portraying what the BSD camp believes properly. But that is for another
> discussion.

I am in the BSD camp. I certainly do not pretend to speak for all of
them but I do speak for myself, and I am speaking properly.

>> I don't bring this up to start a license war, frankly I think that
>> both licenses have a very important role to play. However it does
>> underline significant differences in ideology within just the FOSS
>> movement.
> Yes, but Joshua, we are talking about stuff I've been working on for at
> least 11 years.

W00t! for you. I have been doing it for 15 (13 as a business). What's
your point?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

> I don't recall an officer ever doing the sort of thing a CPA would
> (file taxes and the like). Why would you have SPI hire a CPA to do
> bookkeeper's work? The bookkeeper is to take the load off the
> officers.

Speaking from a purely business perspective. Command Prompt operates
like this.

We have a certified book keeper (my wife actually ;)). She handles all
AR/AP, office adminstrative stuff etc...

We have a CPA that we work closely with. That CPA handles anything and
everything to do with taxes and payroll (except for actually cutting the
checks and mailing coupons).

Once a quarter we also have the CPA audit our books to make sure we put
all the dots and dashes where they need to be.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> -- John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-private mailing list
> Spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

John,

> First off, SPI already HAS a relationship with a CPA. Please google
> for cpa site:spi-inc.org. The board also authorized this while you
> were on it. In short, between our legal counsel and bookeepeing firm,
> plus that CPA, we have everything taken care of that a CPA might need
> to do, plus advice on what needs to go to a CPA and what to give to one.

Quite frankly, this is news to me and I think to Jimmy and Branden as
well. Jimmy? Perhaps I could have a phone number for this CPA?

> You don't hire an expensive CPA to do basic bookkeeping and daily mail
> processing, which it sounds like you've been trying to suggest we do.

Actually, this was my suggestion. Our current bookkeeping firm is quite
passive and needs nagging to take care of routine tasks. Here in San
Francisco, my personal business hires a CPA firm, which employs several
bookkeepers to deal with non-filing issues and the CPA to deal with taxes
and the like. This makes more sense to me than hiring two different
agencies and having the treasurer responsible for being the bridge between
them.

> I don't recall an officer ever doing the sort of thing a CPA would
> (file taxes and the like).

See the recent board mailings. Currently the treasurer is doing 100% of
the filings, which is why we are into double-extension territory.

> Why would you have SPI hire a CPA to do
> bookkeeper's work? The bookkeeper is to take the load off the
> officers.

But Mark's Bookkeeping is not doing so. It's my opinion that we need to
find a more involved bookkeeping agency/CPA office.

Mind you, all of this assumes that I'm going to be elected, which is still
a matter of conjecture.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'm saying that we would need buy-in from PostgreSQL, OVF, OFTC, Drupal,
> gnuStep, etc. as member projects, *as well as* a majority of Debian
> members before proceeding.
>
OK. I think that's do-able.

Thanks

Bruce

John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:11:32AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> The most important thing we've done about money management in the last
>> several years has been to hire a professional book-keeper. The next
>> important task for the coming year, IMO, is hiring a CPA. Doing these
>>
>
> First off, SPI already HAS a relationship with a CPA.
A very limited one just to advise on taxes. I want something more proactive.
> You don't hire an expensive CPA to do basic bookkeeping and daily mail processing, which it sounds like you've been trying to suggest we do.
>
Oh goodness no. You have the book-keeper do absolutely everything that a
book-keeper can do, because it's less expensive that way. But if we had
been proactively under the guidance of a professional CPA, we never
would have become behind on tax filings. OK, hindsight is easy, but
that's what we need to have for the future.
> I don't recall an officer ever doing the sort of thing a CPA would (file taxes and the like).
Nobody was doing that.
> Why would you have SPI hire a CPA to do bookkeeper's work?
I would have a CPA essentially operate as CFO of the organization and
report to the Treasurer. All routine work would still be done by the
book-keeper, but what we are lacking today is the guidance of a
financial professional. Somehow it was easier to find volunteer counsel
than volunteer finance.

Thanks

Bruce

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> O.k. we take a poll. 54% of members agree... what do you do about the
> other 46%?
Hold a discussion among the membership to decide where to go from there.
> I have PostgreSQL, I add library A to PostgreSQL which happens to be
> GPL. I can no longer close source PostgreSQL without removing library A.
None of this says that GPL is not compatible with BSD. And all of this
was discussed to death in the early years of the Open Source campaign.

The BSD license doesn't say that the /entire /product is Open Source. It
doesn't even say that the part the BSD license is on is Open Source,
because it doesn't require that you be able to get the source code. If
you want to make those requirements for the entire program, you will
have to add some other agreement on top of the BSD.

So, where is this thing that makes BSD "more free" according to BSD
fans? It's not in the license at all. It is in the policy that some
projects have that says they will not accept non-BSD-licensed
contributions, and that they will make source code available, and that
they will not bind anyone else to do these things.

Thanks

Bruce

> So, where is this thing that makes BSD "more free" according to BSD
> fans? It's not in the license at all. It is in the policy that some
> projects have that says they will not accept non-BSD-licensed
> contributions, and that they will make source code available, and that
> they will not bind anyone else to do these things.

We are getting way off point here. As I said, I did not bring up BSD /
GPL for a licensing discussion. It was simply a illustration to show
fundamental differences in thinking about FOSS.

Differences which you are clearly pronouncing for me, thank you :)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
>
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> As I said, I did not bring up BSD / GPL for a licensing discussion. It
> was simply a illustration to show fundamental differences in thinking
> about FOSS.
>
> Differences which you are clearly pronouncing for me, thank you :)
Oh come on, Joshua. That's clearly a rhetorical device. What I
demonstrated is that you didn't understand the BSD license, and I did
that to counter the claim of expertise that you used to support your
argument.

BSD folks and GPL proponents share a broad common ground, as do most
Free Software communities. We can rally them to some causes successfully.

Thanks

Bruce

> BSD folks and GPL proponents share a broad common ground, as do most
> Free Software communities. We can rally them to some causes successfully.

Ahh yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious Bruce. I already stated
that in a previous email. My only point was that there are some distinct
differences. Those differences may be 5% of the whole argument, but they
will be enough to create a large divide among the members you are trying
to recruit for your crusade.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 01:32:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> We have a certified book keeper (my wife actually ;)). She handles all
> AR/AP, office adminstrative stuff etc...
>
> We have a CPA that we work closely with. That CPA handles anything and
> everything to do with taxes and payroll (except for actually cutting the
> checks and mailing coupons).

Yup, makes perfect sense. That's the plan we had originally. I'm not
sure why it hasn't panned out that way, hmm...

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 01:40:40PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > First off, SPI already HAS a relationship with a CPA. Please google
> > for cpa site:spi-inc.org. The board also authorized this while you
> > were on it. In short, between our legal counsel and bookeepeing firm,
> > plus that CPA, we have everything taken care of that a CPA might need
> > to do, plus advice on what needs to go to a CPA and what to give to one.
>
> Quite frankly, this is news to me and I think to Jimmy and Branden as
> well. Jimmy? Perhaps I could have a phone number for this CPA?

Nope, not them, because they've already been talking to the CPAs last
year. See -board archives from May 2005 and -private archives from July
2005, plus the 2005 annual report.

> > You don't hire an expensive CPA to do basic bookkeeping and daily mail
> > processing, which it sounds like you've been trying to suggest we do.
>
> Actually, this was my suggestion. Our current bookkeeping firm is quite
> passive and needs nagging to take care of routine tasks. Here in San

I am wondering whether they are that way with everyone, or if they are
that way because of what they perceive we want? In other words, we have
to be active and on top of things from our end, or we can't expect good
results from any company we may hire.

> Francisco, my personal business hires a CPA firm, which employs several
> bookkeepers to deal with non-filing issues and the CPA to deal with taxes
> and the like. This makes more sense to me than hiring two different
> agencies and having the treasurer responsible for being the bridge between
> them.

That does indeed make a lot of sense. (In theory, Mark's was supposed
to work directly with a set of CPAs they work with routinely, but it
looks like this hasn't happened.)

> > I don't recall an officer ever doing the sort of thing a CPA would
> > (file taxes and the like).
>
> See the recent board mailings. Currently the treasurer is doing 100% of
> the filings, which is why we are into double-extension territory.

Well, we haven't actually filed anything, which was sort of my point.
We're not taking load off officers because officers aren't doing it now.
I guess we're both correct since 100% of 0 is 0 ;-)

> > Why would you have SPI hire a CPA to do
> > bookkeeper's work? The bookkeeper is to take the load off the
> > officers.
>
> But Mark's Bookkeeping is not doing so. It's my opinion that we need to
> find a more involved bookkeeping agency/CPA office.

Yes, that makes sense. Hiring an accounting firm makes a lot of sense.
To me, saying "replace Mark's with a CPA" (which is essentially what
Bruce's messages sounded like) sounds like something entirely different.
But he's clarified that, so it sounds like everyone is in violent
agreement over this ;-)

-- John

> Bruce's messages sounded like) sounds like something entirely different.
> But he's clarified that, so it sounds like everyone is in violent
> agreement over this ;-)

/me slowly steps away from John, hoping he doesn't still carry.

>
> -- John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-private mailing list
> Spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Russ Nelson wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > newer projects which joined probably also joined (I know PostgreSQL did)
> > under the understanding that SPI was there to support but not direct.
>
> The theory behind SPI's continued ownership of opensource.org is that
> the Open Source Initiative is a project under SPI's purview. OSI
> doesn't need any of the standard "write checks, provide legal advice,
> hold assets", so why does SPI not hand over ownership of
> opensource.org?
>
> The theory is that SPI members have the right, the duty, and the power
> to withdraw the use of opensource.org from OSI should OSI ever take
> actions inimical to the interests of SPI. I emphasize that this is
> JUST A THEORY. SPI has NEVER directed NOR ATTEMPTED to direct OSI's
> activities. SPI hasn't even ASKED us to do anything, except maybe
> stand up a little straighter and get a haircut. However, there is no
> reason why this theory should not apply to all SPI projects. Thus, I
> should say that your understanding is wrong. In theory, anyway.

Wait, are you saying that in theory, the SPI could take PostgreSQL.Org?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Board candidates should be aware of this.
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Russ Nelson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes:
> > Wait, are you saying that in theory, the SPI could take PostgreSQL.Org?
>
> No, I'm saying that even though SPI is in theory holding resources on
> behalf of and controlled by PostgreSQL.org, it also needs to abide by
> its corporate charter to engage in "Software in the Public Interest".
> If any of SPI's projects should start doing things which are not in
> the public interest, (again, this is all just theory) SPI should
> refuse to allow the project to use those resources.

So you are saying that if we take 5k in donations for postgresql and
then postgresql doesn't something that SPI doesn't like, SPI could
freeze that 5k? In theory?

>
> But to answer your question, SPI is not the owner of PostgreSQL.Org,
> so no.

O.k. good :).

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Well, if "doesn't like" means violating SPI by-laws, e.g. by setting up a nursery school[1], it would have to, no?
The IRS requirements on 501c(3) tax-exempt corporations are what you
really need to be careful about. It would probably take a lawyer to sort
it out if a subproject violated them.

Bruce

Russ Nelson wrote:
> The current board may feel differently
I last proposed a motion to give the domain OSI in April 2005. I think
it was not seconded.

I ask questions of Josh Berkus about political activity and
voting reform. Please, other candidates reply too, if your
views are not clear from your manifestoes, or you want to.

Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> The problem with engaging in any political activity is that it amounts to a
> change of direction for SPI. [...]

So it is right and proper that Bruce Perens should include swpat
in his campaign, to allow the membership to back him or not.
If elected, he will have a mandate which clearly includes this.

These strident statements against political activity puzzle me.
Are you promising to oppose all political activity if elected?
How does that tie up with your manifesto promise to "represent
the views of the community"?

> One needs only look at the recently slashdotted argument over the JVM in
> Debian licensing to see that a large portion of the Debian community would
> react strongly against any political initiatives originating from SPI. The

A significant portion of the Debian community seems willing
to ignore its constitutional agreements when they want (such
as directing donations to a private retailer instead of SPI),
so it seems rather hard to predict what they'd do.

> newer projects which joined probably also joined (I know PostgreSQL did)
> under the understanding that SPI was there to support but not direct.

How is SPI doing something directing associated projects? I thought
Bruce was promising he would work on software patents and seek SPI
support for it, not try to force PostgreSQL to work on swpat itself.
Should SPI work be blockable by any and every associated project?

> So, overall, I think that if you want SPI to become more political, you're
> going to need to use a considerable amount of diplomacy and persuasion to get
> a consensus of opinion behind you.

As far as I can tell, at the moment, Bruce could get SPI backing
with support from over half of at least 35% of the board and
keep it as long as he also has support of more than a third of
the membership who vote.

Are you pledging to work to change that if elected?
If so, why is your voting reform plan not in your manifesto?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > The current board may feel differently
> I last proposed a motion to give the domain OSI in April 2005. I think
> it was not seconded.

It was addressed at the July 26th, 2005 meeting:

http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/minutes/20050726.txt

- -
David "cdlu" Graham - cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca
Guelph, Ontario - http://www.railfan.ca/

MJ,

> These strident statements against political activity puzzle me.
> Are you promising to oppose all political activity if elected?
> How does that tie up with your manifesto promise to "represent
> the views of the community"?\

Are you asking honestly, or are you simply trying to launch an
unwarranted attack on me based on things I didn't say? Because your
email certainly reads like an attempt to paint me with opinions I didn't
express.

As it is, I don't really feel like I can respond to your questions.
They pretty much amount to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

--Josh

Josh,

> So you are saying that if we take 5k in donations for postgresql and
> then postgresql doesn't something that SPI doesn't like, SPI could
> freeze that 5k? In theory?

In theory, yes. In practice, that would amount only to witholding
funds which were requested for something not allowed to 501(c)3s. I
personally can't imagine the PostgreSQL project requesting anything that
wasn't "software in the public interest" related.

--Josh

Josh Berkus wrote:
> As it is, I don't really feel like I can respond to your questions.
> They pretty much amount to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
What, you didn't notice that candidates have to handle hostile
questions? :-)

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>>As it is, I don't really feel like I can respond to your questions.
>>They pretty much amount to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
>
> What, you didn't notice that candidates have to handle hostile
> questions? :-)

Yes, but I'm trying for a higher "dodge" score than you have, Bruce. ;-)

--Josh

Josh Berkus wrote:
> In theory, yes. In practice, that would amount only to witholding
> funds which were requested for something not allowed to 501(c)3s. I
> personally can't imagine the PostgreSQL project requesting anything
> that wasn't "software in the public interest" related.
The relationship between the non-profit project and the commercial
companies involved in it can be problematical. You can't carry out
activities using non-profit funds whose main purpose is to facilitate
their business.

Thanks

Bruce

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> In theory, yes. In practice, that would amount only to witholding
>> funds which were requested for something not allowed to 501(c)3s. I
>> personally can't imagine the PostgreSQL project requesting anything
>> that wasn't "software in the public interest" related.

> The relationship between the non-profit project and the commercial
> companies involved in it can be problematical. You can't carry out
> activities using non-profit funds whose main purpose is to facilitate
> their business.

PostgreSQL.Org doesn't do that except in the sense that it creates
PostgreSQL.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> MJ,
> > These strident statements against political activity puzzle me.
> > Are you promising to oppose all political activity if elected?
> > How does that tie up with your manifesto promise to "represent
> > the views of the community"?
>
> Are you asking honestly, or are you simply trying to launch an
> unwarranted attack on me based on things I didn't say?

My question was honest, based on your statements "The problem
with engaging in any political activity is that it amounts
to a change of direction for SPI." and "I'm saying that we
would need buy-in from PostgreSQL, OVF, OFTC, Drupal, gnuStep,
etc. as member projects, *as well as* a majority of Debian
members before proceeding. On patents or any other issue
which doesn't fall under "sustain & support"." amongst others.

To me, that looked like you want any new political activities to
be approved by all associated projects - that would be another
change of direction for SPI. I'm undecided whether that's
desirable or not, or indeed if that's what you were suggesting,
so I ask:

1. Are you promising to oppose all political activity if elected?
2. How does that tie up with your manifesto promise to "represent
the views of the community"?
3. How is SPI doing something directing associated projects?
4. Should SPI work be blockable by any and every associated project?
5. Are you pledging to work to change [required votes] if elected?
6. If so, why is your voting reform plan not in your manifesto?

> As it is, I don't really feel like I can respond to your questions.
> They pretty much amount to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Rubbish. I tried quite hard not to leave loaded questions.
I broke them down into two questions (1/2 and 5/6), as I don't
know whether what I inferred is what you meant. I left easy
ways to contradict my inferences if they're incorrect, such as
simple "No" answers to questions 1, 4 and 5.

To "dodge" questions by suggesting otherwise is disgraceful
politician behaviour IMO. Now rereading your manifesto afresh
with an eye suspicious of politicians, I notice you comment on
the tardiness of treasurer reports, but you haven't actually
promised to do anything better.

7. Would you "dodge" treasurer reports too, if elected as Treasurer?

Newsnightly,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask

MJ,

OK, based people vouching on IRC that you weren't trying to start another
flamewar, I'm going to answer the question I think is relevant rather than
the direct questions you asked:

It's my opinion that the primary mission of SPI is to support & sustain
existing open source efforts in the form of the member projects. This is
the only mission which does not require public discussion and the one with
which other initiatives cannot conflict.

Since the addition of the associated projects, SPI is now a "federated"
organization, that is one made up of discrete parts with varied interests.
For any federated organization to stay together and thrive, any major
decision needs to be endorsed by not only a majority of the membership but
a consensus of the member organizations as well. Otherwise, you risk
alienating an entire member organization because they "have no voice" and
they will leave SPI.

This is especially important right now, when the vast majority of SPI
registered contributors are DDs.

You may not be aware of this, but just last August I was told by several
people that SPI was "consitutionally unable to support projects other than
Debian" by several major OSS organizers. The associated project
structure was meant to change that. If we start making major decisions
of political direction based on simple majority rule, SPI will go back to
being Debian-only because the other projects will leave.

You, as well as a couple others, use the example of Software Patents as an
"obvious good" which nobody could argue with. But things are not so
clear-cut. For example, if one of our associated projects was recieving
the majority of its funding from IBM, having SPI spend significant funds
and publicity on opposing SW patents could cause that organization to
become defunded and even cease to exist.

So we need to check with *each* member organization before engaging in
activities which will affect all of them.

Therefore, it is my opinion that any argument that we do not need a
consensus of member projects to engage in major external activities is
really an argument that SPI shouldn't have associated projects at all.

Clearer?

--
--Josh Berkus

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project Core Team
www.postgresql.org

(all opinions expressed are my own; I do not speak
for the Project unless specifically noted.)

MJ,

Ok, these are pretty clear. To suppliment my earlier e-mail (please read
that before these answers), here's some direct yes-no.

> 1. Are you promising to oppose all political activity if elected?

No, I am not.

> 2. How does that tie up with your manifesto promise to "represent
> the views of the community"?

N/A since the answer to (1) is "no".

> 3. How is SPI doing something directing associated projects?

If we were to engage in major outward-facing political activity without the
endorsement of the associated projects, we would be effectively "dragging
them along with us."

> 4. Should SPI work be blockable by any and every associated project?

Depends on the kind of work, and the kind of objection. In extreme cases,
yes.

> 5. Are you pledging to work to change [required votes] if elected?

If I believe that the initiative has the backing of the majority of SPI
members and member projects and is consistent with our mission, then I'm
very good at building consensus. Keep in mind that consensus usually
means "compromise" as well, though -- it's not a matter of badgering the
holdouts into agreement.

> 6. If so, why is your voting reform plan not in your manifesto?

Because currently SPI has a very loose structure in which the members elect
the board every year and the board does whatever it wants. Within that
structure, I don't think that any charter modification is necessary.

I guess one of our differences is that I see listening to the associated
projects as consistent with (if fact, required by) inviting them to join
and thus no change in direction for SPI.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Acting PostgreSQL Liason, SPI
PostgreSQL Core Team

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:28:51PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > I personally can't imagine the PostgreSQL project requesting anything that
> > wasn't "software in the public interest" related.
>
> I personally can't imagine the Open Source Initiative doing anything
> that wasn't "software in the public interest" related. But some SPI
> board members can, so a minority of the board's opinion carried the
> day. I'm not trying to change their mind; I just want board
> candidates to be aware that their stated goals differ from past and/or
> current positions held by the SPI board.

There is also quite a colorful history between opensource.org,
OSI, and SPI, and the relationship of OSI to SPI was always quite
different than any other. If memory serves, opensource.org and the Open
Source mark was created by SPI, which isn't the case for any other
project.

Of course, then there was The Great Resignation, in which most of the
SPI board resigned (only 1 member remained), and Bruce trying to claim
by fiat that SPI transfers Open Source mark to OSI without having
obtained board approval, etc. [1]

Again if memory serves, the founding board members of OSI consisted of
some of these former SPI members, plus a few others. OSI was created
*after* SPI established opensource.org. I am still unclear as to why or
how OSI considers itself a SPI project; the closest I can find from a
quick search of public documents is that SPI considers "OpenSource.org"
to be an SPI project, but has no such relationship with OSI.

And Bruce, before you complain about me bringing up bad things you did
in 1998, let me add that you mentioned acts you did in that timeframe in
a positive light, so there's nothing unfair about it. If you're going
to tout your accomplishments from 1998, we should also look at problems.

[1] http://www.spi-inc.org/news/1998/19981124

John Goerzen wrote:
> And Bruce, before you complain about me bringing up bad things you did
> in 1998, let me add that you mentioned acts you did in that timeframe in
> a positive light, so there's nothing unfair about it. If you're going
> to tout your accomplishments from 1998, we should also look at problems.
>
And we should acknowledge that people make mistakes, and learn from
them. But of the mistakes I made back then, I'm not sure that holding
onto the domain was one. Consider that even eight years later, other
board members had enough misgivings to abstain or vote no. Over the past
years I have been ambiguous on this issue - I've been a "no" or a "yes"
at different times.

Thanks

Bruce

Tim Brown wrote:
> How do all candidates (those previously mentioned included - you have views on Debian, Postgres etc I am sure) intend to deal with the trade off between inclusiveness and individual project positions?
>
This is an interesting question. It makes me think of the problems that
Debian is prone to with such a large community, the fact that Ubuntu has
been able to do some things that did not work for Debian, and that
Ubuntu chose to have their own community rather than work in Debian. Not
that I have an answer yet, but I'll keep looking.
> When we signed up to SPI we viewed them as a governance against bad practice and a support against legal malice.
As important as I believe this is, the problems have been theoretical so
far. So, there is little history to talk about. It would be wonderful if
they stayed theoretical and the world just let us work in peace, but I
don't believe they will.
> In short I am looking for those who will carry consensus[1] in the wider context.
>
Well, the above hasn't said much about carrying consensus. My best
exercise in that was the development of the Debian Social Contract. We
all pretty much agreed that one was necessary, we discussed it for a
month, and at the end of the month we had a clear majority for approval
and a number of dissenters who recognized that they were in the minority
and were willing to go along with the rest of the group.

They aren't all that easy.

Thanks

Bruce

Tim,

> As someone involved in an new SPI project who has no preconceived ideas
> of the make up of the board. Candidates Neil McGovern and Bruce Perens
> have both had involvement in where OpenVAS is today. How do all
> candidates (those previously mentioned included - you have views on
> Debian, Postgres etc I am sure) intend to deal with the trade off
> between inclusiveness and individual project positions?

I think I already answered that in my response to MJ.

--
--Josh Berkus

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project Core Team
www.postgresql.org

(all opinions expressed are my own; I do not speak
for the Project unless specifically noted.)

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:37:16AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> You, as well as a couple others, use the example of Software Patents as an
> "obvious good" which nobody could argue with. But things are not so
> clear-cut. For example, if one of our associated projects was recieving
> the majority of its funding from IBM, having SPI spend significant funds
> and publicity on opposing SW patents could cause that organization to
> become defunded and even cease to exist.

FWIW, Linux Australia receives a lot of support from IBM (it's been an
ongoing major sponsor of linux.conf.au), and also actively participates
in topics of copyright and patent reform. As it happens, Rusty Russell
has been our key IP guy for a few years now, and is also an IBM employee.
Linux Australia also tries to support free software groups in Australia,
though at present we don't hold significant funds for anyone else in
the way that SPI does. So that's not an entirely fair example.

I don't think that sort of campaigning is really that difficult, but it
does mean that SPI has to have a separate identity to any organisations
it supports, rather than having them be considered "SPI projects" and
thus implied to follow where SPI leads.

To put it another way: if PostgreSQL were to think patents are good,
and SPI were to think patents were bad, but PostgreSQL is good; is
there any reason for PostgreSQL to stop using SPI for its finances,
just because they're arguing different sides of an issue in public?

OTOH, if that reaches the point where SPI starts exercising too
much control over PostgreSQL's funds -- eg, declining to pay patent
registration fees on behalf of some PostgreSQL contributors which
was going to be used as a revenue stream for further free software
development, because it conflicts with SPI's position on patents, rather
than its role as a 501(c)3 charitable organisation -- or otherwise starts
trying to change how the member organisation is run, that would be a
reason for PostgreSQL to move on from SPI, IMO. I hope that wouldn't
happen.

(I'm ignoring the opensource.org stuff, because I don't think it's
something we want to see as a precedent)

Cheers,
aj

Anthony,

> FWIW, Linux Australia receives a lot of support from IBM (it's been an
> ongoing major sponsor of linux.conf.au), and also actively participates
> in topics of copyright and patent reform. As it happens, Rusty Russell
> has been our key IP guy for a few years now, and is also an IBM employee.

That was hypothetical example. I don't know for a fact that IBM would
withhold donations to a vocally anti-SW-patent organization. I was making
an example of why it was necessary to *check* with the member organizations
before proceeding.

> To put it another way: if PostgreSQL were to think patents are good,
> and SPI were to think patents were bad, but PostgreSQL is good; is
> there any reason for PostgreSQL to stop using SPI for its finances,
> just because they're arguing different sides of an issue in public?

Where it would become a critical issue is if it affected PostgreSQL's (or any
other member project's) ability to raise funds and/or run their project. And
the only way we can know that is if we check with those projects.

Are you arguing that it's *not* necessary to check? If not, what are you
arguing?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)

Robert,

> Given the danger that software patents (not to mention laws like the DMCA,
> Sunny Bono Act, etc...) pose to open source software developers, do you
> really believe there is _no corralation_ between the educating of
> government/business/public about the problems with software patents and
> the "support and sustain" clause of SPI?

Yes, I am. Software patents are a strategic issue, one which relates to our
ability to do free software in the future. Support & sustain deal strictly
tactically with project's ability to pay bills, have servers and trademarks,
and continue day-to-day operation.

Whether or not SPI pays for Debian's conference insurance out of Debian funds,
or whether SPI accepts ownership of a server donated to PostgreSQL, are
routine tasks which do not require consensus or general discussion. Whether
or not SPI gets involved directly in opposing SW Patents (and how) as an
entire organization is a strategic question which *does* require discussion
and consensus.

I find it interesting that because I keep emphasizing representational process
and proper consensus-building, several people on this list seem to be keen to
twist that into saying that I favor software patents. I'm just not in favor
of rule by the loudest minority.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:30:14PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > To put it another way: if PostgreSQL were to think patents are good,
> > and SPI were to think patents were bad, but PostgreSQL is good; is
> > there any reason for PostgreSQL to stop using SPI for its finances,
> > just because they're arguing different sides of an issue in public?
> Where it would become a critical issue is if it affected PostgreSQL's (or any
> other member project's) ability to raise funds and/or run their project. And
> the only way we can know that is if we check with those projects.
> Are you arguing that it's *not* necessary to check? If not, what are you
> arguing?

I'm more suggesting that I think it's possible to setup the relationship
between SPI and the projects it supports in such a way that they can
handle those sorts of issues without needing approval from every member
project; mostly by making SPI and its member organisations roughly as
independent from each other as, eg, IBM and PostgreSQL are when it comes
to promoting DB2 perhaps.

Which is to say that SPI could take the view that it undertakes multiple
activities in the public interest, some of which is supporting
organisations like Debian and PostgreSQL, while others include
participating in patent reform, and not trying to claim a particularly
strong relationship between the two activities.

I'm not sure it's possible to do so while still having the "liability
shield" stuff that's been talked about, though. And SPI's relationships
with Debian and OSI and others certainly aren't at that point yet.

BTW, Software Freedom Day is Sept 16th this year, with the signup
deadline being tomorrow (Wednesday); is that something any of the SPI
board/candidates think SPI should be involved in in some way?

Cheers,
aj

Anthony,

> I'm more suggesting that I think it's possible to setup the relationship
> between SPI and the projects it supports in such a way that they can
> handle those sorts of issues without needing approval from every member
> project; mostly by making SPI and its member organisations roughly as
> independent from each other as, eg, IBM and PostgreSQL are when it comes
> to promoting DB2 perhaps.

Well, that's actually a counter-example. IBM does *not* officially support
PostgreSQL, precisely because they have DB2. They certainly *use*
PostgreSQL.

> Which is to say that SPI could take the view that it undertakes multiple
> activities in the public interest, some of which is supporting
> organisations like Debian and PostgreSQL, while others include
> participating in patent reform, and not trying to claim a particularly
> strong relationship between the two activities.

Right. Those activities would have to be handled carefully in order for them
not to "spill over" onto each other. That's what I'm watching out for.

> BTW, Software Freedom Day is Sept 16th this year, with the signup
> deadline being tomorrow (Wednesday); is that something any of the SPI
> board/candidates think SPI should be involved in in some way?

What does one do for Software Freedom Day?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 08:40:31PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Yes, I am. Software patents are a strategic issue, one which relates to our
> ability to do free software in the future. Support & sustain deal strictly
> tactically with project's ability to pay bills, have servers and trademarks,
> and continue day-to-day operation.

FWIW, I think "aid, assist, cooperate, co-sponsor and otherwise engage in
concerted action with private, educational and governmental organizations
and associations on all issues and matters concerning the use of computers
and computer software" would include "strategic issues".

Being confident in your ability to pay bills, host servers and do
day-to-day operations even in the absence of external threats is a far
more important strategic issue though :)

Cheers,
aj

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:11:39PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > BTW, Software Freedom Day is Sept 16th this year, with the signup
> > deadline being tomorrow (Wednesday); is that something any of the SPI
> > board/candidates think SPI should be involved in in some way?
> What does one do for Software Freedom Day?

Promote software freedom -- eg by handing out free software for Windows
like the Open CD, or free distributions like Debian or Ubuntu, or whatever
else people think of.

Cheers,
aj

Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> Ok, these are pretty clear. To suppliment my earlier e-mail (please read
> that before these answers), here's some direct yes-no.

Thanks. My replies to the previous mail are below this one.

[...]
> > 3. How is SPI doing something directing associated projects?
>
> If we were to engage in major outward-facing political activity without the
> endorsement of the associated projects, we would be effectively "dragging
> them along with us."

I share aj's view that another approach is that "SPI has to
have a separate identity to any organisations it supports".
I think SPI is an association, not a consortium or collective.
Of course, it's preferable not to do things which cause projects
to terminate their association, but maybe it'll be wanted.

[...]
> > 5. Are you pledging to work to change [required votes] if elected?
>
> If I believe that the initiative has the backing of the majority of SPI
> members and member projects and is consistent with our mission, then I'm
> very good at building consensus. Keep in mind that consensus usually
> means "compromise" as well, though -- it's not a matter of badgering the
> holdouts into agreement.

I assume this is a yes, as 6 was answered.

> > 6. If so, why is your voting reform plan not in your manifesto?
>
> Because currently SPI has a very loose structure in which the members elect
> the board every year and the board does whatever it wants. Within that
> structure, I don't think that any charter modification is necessary.
>
> I guess one of our differences is that I see listening to the associated
> projects as consistent with (if fact, required by) inviting them to join
> and thus no change in direction for SPI.

As far as I can tell, that requirement is not currently clear
in SPI's agreements. If it's where we are, I think it should be
spelt out by changing the Associated Project Framework and/or
Committee Framework.

[... other email ...]
> For any federated organization to stay together and thrive, any major
> decision needs to be endorsed by not only a majority of the membership but
> a consensus of the member organizations as well. Otherwise, you risk
> alienating an entire member organization because they "have no voice" and
> they will leave SPI.

So-called "democracy by exit" is a fairly common situation.
It is desireable to know that an association will terminate
before it happens, but it's a factor in the decision rather
than the decision itself, as it stands.

SPI becoming a federation seems a fairly major change of
structure. How would it be done? What timetable?

> This is especially important right now, when the vast majority of SPI
> registered contributors are DDs.

Some of us are also involved in other associated projects,
but it seems that a reduction of debian influence would occur.
Would they vote for it? Would SPI need them to?

> You may not be aware of this, but just last August I was told by several
> people that SPI was "consitutionally unable to support projects other than
> Debian" by several major OSS organizers. The associated project
> structure was meant to change that. [...]

As far as I can see from www.spi-inc.org, the Associated
Project Framework dates from 1998 and was changed in 2004,
so I'm confused by the mention of changes since August 2005.
How was it "consitutionally unable" and what changed?

> You, as well as a couple others, use the example of Software Patents as an
> "obvious good" which nobody could argue with.

When did I ever claim it was an "obvious good" and that
nobody could argue with it? I quite expect argument about it.

According to my notes, I wrote "Anti-swpat lobbying does seem
helpful to several of its goals, in my opinion. Whether it is
the best org to do it is debatable"; "If board members judge
that education about swpat is within the general powers [...]
then it's fine"; and "it is right and proper that Bruce Perens
should include swpat in his campaign, to allow the membership
to back him or not".

Are you simply trying to launch an unwarranted attack on me
based on things I didn't say? ;-)

> [...] For example, if one of our associated projects was recieving
> the majority of its funding from IBM, having SPI spend significant funds
> and publicity on opposing SW patents could cause that organization to
> become defunded and even cease to exist.
>
> So we need to check with *each* member organization before engaging in
> activities which will affect all of them.

I agree up to here, but I worry that the associated projects would
try to second-guess what funders like IBM would want and
self-censor themselves - and consequently censor SPI activities
based on nothing more than guesswork.

> Therefore, it is my opinion that any argument that we do not need a
> consensus of member projects to engage in major external activities is
> really an argument that SPI shouldn't have associated projects at all.
>
> Clearer?

Yes, thanks. I disagree with this being done in an undocumented
and unagreed way because it will lead to differences between the
expectations from reading the documented agreements and how things
are done in practice. A change this radical should have been
included in a manifesto, or should only be done after further
approval.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask

Tim Brown wrote:
> How do all candidates (those previously mentioned included - you have
> views on Debian, Postgres etc I am sure) intend to deal with the trade
> off between inclusiveness and individual project positions?

I think individual project positions should be considered when the board
makes decisions. In many of the Debian votes I've participated in, one
of the options is "Further Discussion" - I think having further
discussion where individual project positions are in contention and
there is no clear consensus would be beneficial to all involved. When
project positions are in contention and there is a plurality or majority
in favor of a given direction, I think the consensus is fairly clear.
The board members are elected to serve SPI as a whole - if a given
project feels their views are not adequately represented, they have
several options, ranging from trying to convince more people to support
their position to offering a candidate for the next board election.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)debian(dot)org

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 01:30:15PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> SPI becoming a federation seems a fairly major change of
> structure. How would it be done? What timetable?

Some would view SPI as a federation already -- that's implied by the
claims that Debian has no legal existance apart from SPI, and possibly
the relationship SPI has had with opensource.org for the entirety of
the latter's existance.

As it stands, I think the situation is pretty ambiguous, and I'm not sure
that's actually harmful for the time being; but if the board want to go
further into issues like patent lobbying, liability protection, or just
supporting more projects, it's probably something that will need to be
clarified during the terms of the board members we're going to elect.

Cheers,
aj

Jonas,

> These are very closely related. In order to continue your day-to-day
> operations and continue with the development of PostgreSQL, for
> instance, you need to be legally able to do so. The SPI, as an
> orgnisation that is put in place to "support & sustain" the PostgreSQL
> should do what it can to ensure that PostgreSQL is able to continue
> developing its software in the future, otherwise the SPI will end up
> holding assets for organisations that are unable to carry out their work.

I'm really unclear on why you're arguing here. You seem to be playing logic
games in order to justify having the board take strategic action *without*
any membership/organizational consensus. Given that you're not even running
for Board, this seems very altruistic of you. ;-)

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)

MJ,

> I share aj's view that another approach is that "SPI has to
> have a separate identity to any organisations it supports".
> I think SPI is an association, not a consortium or collective.
> Of course, it's preferable not to do things which cause projects
> to terminate their association, but maybe it'll be wanted.

Yes, and I take Anthony's point that it's possible for SPI to do stuff which
does not affect the individual projects. However, this would need to be
handled carefully, especially the first few times before we have guidelines
of experience.

> > I guess one of our differences is that I see listening to the associated
> > projects as consistent with (if fact, required by) inviting them to join
> > and thus no change in direction for SPI.
>
> As far as I can tell, that requirement is not currently clear
> in SPI's agreements. If it's where we are, I think it should be
> spelt out by changing the Associated Project Framework and/or
> Committee Framework.

Yes, it's probably a good thing that we're having this discussion. I'll bet
that most people haven't thought about it one way or the other.

> So-called "democracy by exit" is a fairly common situation.
> It is desireable to know that an association will terminate
> before it happens, but it's a factor in the decision rather
> than the decision itself, as it stands.
>
> SPI becoming a federation seems a fairly major change of
> structure. How would it be done? What timetable?

Well, SPI is already *de facto* a federation even if we are not *de jure* one.

> Some of us are also involved in other associated projects,
> but it seems that a reduction of debian influence would occur.
> Would they vote for it? Would SPI need them to?

Well, how did the original associated projects idea come about?

> > You may not be aware of this, but just last August I was told by several
> > people that SPI was "consitutionally unable to support projects other
> > than Debian" by several major OSS organizers. The associated project
> > structure was meant to change that. [...]
>
> As far as I can see from www.spi-inc.org, the Associated
> Project Framework dates from 1998 and was changed in 2004,
> so I'm confused by the mention of changes since August 2005.
> How was it "consitutionally unable" and what changed?

There was a change to the associated project structure in November 2005.

> When did I ever claim it was an "obvious good" and that
> nobody could argue with it? I quite expect argument about it.
...
> Are you simply trying to launch an unwarranted attack on me
> based on things I didn't say? ;-)

Touche'

> I agree up to here, but I worry that the associated projects would
> try to second-guess what funders like IBM would want and
> self-censor themselves - and consequently censor SPI activities
> based on nothing more than guesswork.

Well, we're not talking about a simple "yes/no". I'm talking about "Hey,
OpenVAS, we're thinking about campaigning against the color blue. Is that a
problem for you? If so, why?" This information will allow the board
members to weigh the relative drawbacks and advantages of any initiative
realistically.

> Yes, thanks. I disagree with this being done in an undocumented
> and unagreed way because it will lead to differences between the
> expectations from reading the documented agreements and how things
> are done in practice. A change this radical should have been
> included in a manifesto, or should only be done after further
> approval.

Well, I'd see this as a set of guidelines for the board rather than a
constitutional change.

Remember that this discussion started because Bruce said that he could carry a
"plurality" of SPI members in favor of fighting software patents, and I said
that a plurality wasn't good enough. I didn't put anything regarding
political initiatives into my platform statement because, quite frankly,
political initiatives for my first board term had never occurred to me. I
fully expect that it will take me over a year of hard work just to get our
finiances working smoothly and more-or-less automatically.

Or to put it another way, I think that SPI still has enough to do getting our
day-to-day operations running smoothly before we start on any new strategic
objectives.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)

I would like to point out some things that some people (Josh perhaps
included) aren't clear on:

* Most of the money and other assets that SPI legally owns are held
in trust for the corresponding Associated Projects. See the
Framework for Associated Projects [1]. The terms of the trust are
the Framework itself and any other agreements between the project's
representatives and SPI.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law.)

This means that SPI is legally obliged to use these assets as
directed by each Project, provided of course that that doesn't
conflict with SPI's own need to use its assents only for the
furtherance of its charitable purposes (this is spelled out in the
Framework).

This means that SPI is not able to arbitrarily freeze the funds
allocated for particular projects. Of course SPI might refuse to
spend these funds in ways that SPI considers are inconsistent with
SPI's goals (as set out in the bylaws) or legal obligations. As
the trustee and as a charity, SPI has to take responsibility for
these kind of decisions.

In principle it would be possible for a disagreement about whether
some use of SPI funds held in trust for a Project conflicted with
SPI's goals to be resolved in court: someone intended by the
project to be a beneficiary could sue SPI for breach of the trust.
Of course we all hope it wouldn't come to that!

(As an aside, this is why the earmarked funds should be reported as
liabilities in SPI's balance sheet.)

* SPI is already officially opposed to software patents. See the
Position and Promises about Intellectual Property [2].

So if a Project wanted to register a patent we would want to be
clear that the intent was for defensive use only, and then once
registered SPI (as the legal owner) would use the patent only
defensively. SPI would refuse to use the patent to generate
revenue.

I hope that no SPI Associated Project would ask SPI to spend SPI
money earmarked for them on a software patent for revenue
generation. If they did ask that we would find ourselves in
serious dispute with them.

On the other hand, of course, SPI won't spend money earmarked for
Projects on campaigning against software patents unless directed by
the Project (see above). And in general we'd probably want to
consult our lawyer before we used charitable funds for these
purposes, because of the legal restrictions that usually apply to
campaigning.

[1] http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-08-10.iwj.1
[2] http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-1998-11-16.iwj.2

Ian.