Re: Resolution The Open MPI Project as an associated project

This was meant to go into September meeting (originally proposed). At that
point, a clause suggesting what to do if the project becomes defunct was
requested. I am not expecting for Open MPI to become defunct anytime soon,
this is mostly guidance for the future SPI board. It is similar in spirit
how other projects left SPI - by transferring all outstanding assets to a
different or a new US 501(c)(3) charity.

I hope for the board to vote on this tomorrow =)

WHEREAS

1. The Open MPI Project is a substantial and significant Free Software
project.

2. The Open MPI Project developers would like SPI's support and
assistance, including taking donations.

THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES THAT

1. The Open MPI Project is formally invited to become an SPI
Associated Project, according to the SPI Framework for Associated
Projects, SPI Resolution 1998-11-16.iwj.1-amended-2004-08-10.iwj.1, a
copy of which can be found at
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004/2004-08-10.iwj.1/

2. Ralph Castain <rhc(at)open-mpi(dot)org> is recognised by SPI as the
authoritative decision maker and SPI liaison for The Open MPI Project.
Successors will be appointed or elected by full members of the The
Open MPI Project <https://www.open-mpi.org/about/members/>.

3. If the last known SPI liaison for The Open MPI Project is missing
in action, and no new SPI liaison is appointed for two consecutive
years the associated project is deemed defunct. Defunct project's
assets may be transferred to a nominated US 501(c)(3) charity or to
the SPI general fund.

4. This invitation will lapse, if not accepted, 60 days after it is
approved by the SPI Board.

--
Regards,

Dimitri.

On 10/09/2016 11:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> This was meant to go into September meeting (originally proposed). At
> that point, a clause suggesting what to do if the project becomes
> defunct was requested. I am not expecting for Open MPI to become defunct
> anytime soon, this is mostly guidance for the future SPI board. It is
> similar in spirit how other projects left SPI - by transferring all
> outstanding assets to a different or a new US 501(c)(3) charity.

I'm going to object to putting this on tommorrow's agenda.

I don't have any specific objections to the content of the proposal, but
16 hours is WAY insufficient discussion time for an Associated project
proposal.

We depend on the members to raise issues around legal entanglements,
traps and other "unknown unknowns" with new projects. Giving members
less than a day's notice is in no way adequate for this.

--Josh Berkus

On 10/09/2016 06:54 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 11:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> This was meant to go into September meeting (originally proposed). At
>> that point, a clause suggesting what to do if the project becomes
>> defunct was requested. I am not expecting for Open MPI to become defunct
>> anytime soon, this is mostly guidance for the future SPI board. It is
>> similar in spirit how other projects left SPI - by transferring all
>> outstanding assets to a different or a new US 501(c)(3) charity.
>
> I'm going to object to putting this on tommorrow's agenda.
>
> I don't have any specific objections to the content of the proposal, but
> 16 hours is WAY insufficient discussion time for an Associated project
> proposal.
>
> We depend on the members to raise issues around legal entanglements,
> traps and other "unknown unknowns" with new projects. Giving members
> less than a day's notice is in no way adequate for this.

OpenMPI has been in discussions with the board since June.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.

On 10/10/2016 11:10 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 06:54 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
>> On 10/09/2016 11:45 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>>> This was meant to go into September meeting (originally proposed). At
>>> that point, a clause suggesting what to do if the project becomes
>>> defunct was requested. I am not expecting for Open MPI to become defunct
>>> anytime soon, this is mostly guidance for the future SPI board. It is
>>> similar in spirit how other projects left SPI - by transferring all
>>> outstanding assets to a different or a new US 501(c)(3) charity.
>>
>> I'm going to object to putting this on tommorrow's agenda.
>>
>> I don't have any specific objections to the content of the proposal, but
>> 16 hours is WAY insufficient discussion time for an Associated project
>> proposal.
>>
>> We depend on the members to raise issues around legal entanglements,
>> traps and other "unknown unknowns" with new projects. Giving members
>> less than a day's notice is in no way adequate for this.
>
> OpenMPI has been in discussions with the board since June.

But not shared with spi-private or spi-general.

The reason why the board voted on the "wait a week" rule 3 or 4 years
ago (as soon as I find the resolution, I'll link it) was because of an
incident in which SPI almost accepted a project, only to have an SPI
member bring up that the project applying was currently being sued, and
SPI would be taking on those legal expenses (was some kind of IoT
project).

The whole point of announcing prospective projects to the membership is
to crowd-source information about them. But you can't do that in less
than 24 hours.

--Josh Berkus

* Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [2016-10-10 11:10]:
> >We depend on the members to raise issues around legal
> >entanglements, traps and other "unknown unknowns" with new
> >projects. Giving members less than a day's notice is in no way
> >adequate for this.
>
> OpenMPI has been in discussions with the board since June.

Yes, but the public / SPI members didn't have much time to object or
provide feedback.

--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Hi folks

I realize that we didn’t make it to the Oct 12 agenda - our members are wondering if you believe this will get on the Nov meeting?

Thanks
Ralph

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com> wrote:
>
> * Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [2016-10-10 11:10]:
>>> We depend on the members to raise issues around legal
>>> entanglements, traps and other "unknown unknowns" with new
>>> projects. Giving members less than a day's notice is in no way
>>> adequate for this.
>>
>> OpenMPI has been in discussions with the board since June.
>
> Yes, but the public / SPI members didn't have much time to object or
> provide feedback.
>
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> http://www.cyrius.com/

* rhc(at)open-mpi(dot)org <rhc(at)open-mpi(dot)org> [2016-10-25 09:27]:
> I realize that we didn’t make it to the Oct 12 agenda - our members are wondering if you believe this will get on the Nov meeting?

I haven't seen any objections, so I would expect we vote on it in
November.

I can add it to the agenda.

--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Thank you! Look forward to working with you folks!
Ralph

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Martin Michlmayr <tbm(at)cyrius(dot)com> wrote:
>
> * rhc(at)open-mpi(dot)org <rhc(at)open-mpi(dot)org> [2016-10-25 09:27]:
>> I realize that we didn’t make it to the Oct 12 agenda - our members are wondering if you believe this will get on the Nov meeting?
>
> I haven't seen any objections, so I would expect we vote on it in
> November.
>
> I can add it to the agenda.
>
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> http://www.cyrius.com/