Re: SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 20:00 UTC

MEETING REMINDER
----------------

The Board of Directors of Software in the Public Interest, Inc., will
hold a public board of directors meeting this Thursday, 14th June,
2012 at 20:00 UTC.

SPI meetings are held on irc.spi-inc.org (the OFTC network), in #spi.
The agenda for the meeting is open for additions and available at
http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2012/2012-06-14/

There are currently 2 resolutions on the agenda:

2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)
2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)

More information on SPI meetings can be found at
http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/

J.
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

--
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.
This .sig brought to you by the letter K and the number 1
Product of the Republic of HuggieTag

Jonathan McDowell writes ("SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 20:00 UTC"):
> 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)

Can I bring to the attention of the Board my objection to the wording
of clause 4 of this resolution ?

I propose this alternative (this is my earlier text amended along the
lines suggested by Stefano Sabatini):

4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the current liason for
FFmpeg. SPI expects him to inform us of decisions relating to SPI
made by the FFmpeg project, and we will honour his requests in
accordance with the Framework for Associated Projects.

However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance
structure. Therefore in case of dispute, SPI will follow what
appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus view of the
FFmpeg project's direct contributors.

Changes since my previous version are to remove `significant' in front
of `dispute' and to change `committers' to `direct contributors'. I
respectfully submit that the Board should approve this text rather
than the proposal in 2012-05-17.mcs.1.

In the email discussion no-one seems to have suggested that
"authoritative decisionmaker" _doesn't_ mean what I say it does.

The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always
done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100%
attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done
wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now.

Robert wrote:
> If the board doesn't object, I'm happy to refer this to SPI counsel for
> advice. This will happen in parallel to the current proposal of course.

I don't think it is necessary to refer this to laywers. It's really
perfectly straightforward. If no-one has any objections to my text
above it should be used. If there are minor objections they should be
fixed up in the board meeting. We shouldn't delay FFmpeg's
association with SPI.

Thanks,
Ian.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell writes ("SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 20:00 UTC"):
> > 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)

I think you mean 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)
rather than 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated
project)

>
> Can I bring to the attention of the Board my objection to the wording
> of clause 4 of this resolution ?
>
> I propose this alternative (this is my earlier text amended along the
> lines suggested by Stefano Sabatini):
>
> 4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the current liason for
> FFmpeg. SPI expects him to inform us of decisions relating to SPI
> made by the FFmpeg project, and we will honour his requests in
> accordance with the Framework for Associated Projects.
>
> However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance
> structure. Therefore in case of dispute, SPI will follow what
> appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus view of the
> FFmpeg project's direct contributors.
>
> Changes since my previous version are to remove `significant' in front
> of `dispute' and to change `committers' to `direct contributors'. I
> respectfully submit that the Board should approve this text rather
> than the proposal in 2012-05-17.mcs.1.
>
> In the email discussion no-one seems to have suggested that
> "authoritative decisionmaker" _doesn't_ mean what I say it does.
>
> The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always
> done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100%
> attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done
> wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now.

Seems reasonable to me.

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

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always
> done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100%
> attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done
> wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now.

It's definitely worth fixing the wording, but since everyone on both the SPI
side and the FFmpeg side is willing to work with each other, I don't personally
care whether it gets fixed before or after today's vote. Whether the version
that is presented for vote is the original one or a suitably fixed one is not
likely to affect my vote. If FFmpeg associates under the usual-status-quo
wording, then we can change the wording later with their agreement.

I'll leave it to others to hash out whch version gets voted on today.

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

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Jonathan McDowell writes ("SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 2$
>> 2012-05-17.mcs.1 (Removal of OpenOffice.org as associated project)
> Can I bring to the attention of the Board my objection to the wording
> of clause 4 of this resolution ?

I mentioned your objection during the discussion leading up to the vote on
2012-05-25.rtb.1.

[Ian's proposed alternative wording partly snipped for brevity]

** Note, original wording passed a vote between Ian's email and this
response **

> However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance
> structure. Therefore in case of dispute, SPI will follow what
> appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus view of the
> FFmpeg project's direct contributors.

Doesn't 2004-08-10.iwj.1 already cover that? 2004-08-10.iwj.1
is referenced in the resolution template.

I did quote this in recent discussions on this topic but here it is again:

"If a Project's internal organization or procedures are unclear or
disputed, SPI will deal with the situation as fairly as possible; if
possible SPI will act according to the decisions or rough consensus of the
Project's participants or in case of doubt that of the whole Community."

> In the email discussion no-one seems to have suggested that
> "authoritative decisionmaker" _doesn't_ mean what I say it does.

Actually I did, in my first response after you initially raised the
concern. I am quite prepared to concede that my interpretation of the
term is wrong but it is different to yours (as I understand your
position).

> The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always
> done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100%
> attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done
> wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now.

I am cautious about changing wording without proper consideration (as per
my next comment).

> Robert wrote:
>> If the board doesn't object, I'm happy to refer this to SPI counsel for
>> advice. This will happen in parallel to the current proposal of course.
>
> I don't think it is necessary to refer this to laywers. It's really

I disagree on this point. My position is that we should definitely have
counsel review any proposed resolution template before we put it in to
action. This need not be an onerous process. SFLC has been very quick to
respond to our queries in the past. I am very impressed by the service
they have been providing us.

Cheers,

Rob

--
Director, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Email: robert(at)spi-inc(dot)org Linux counter ID #16440
IRC: Solver (OFTC & Freenode)
Web: http://www.spi-inc.org
Free and Open Source: The revolution that quietly changed the world

Robert Brockway writes ("Re: SPI Meeting Reminder: Thursday 14th June, 2012 @ 20:00 UTC"):
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In the email discussion no-one seems to have suggested that
> > "authoritative decisionmaker" _doesn't_ mean what I say it does.
>
> Actually I did, in my first response after you initially raised the
> concern. I am quite prepared to concede that my interpretation of the
> term is wrong but it is different to yours (as I understand your
> position).

I'm afraid I've had a bit to drink now, but:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Do yuo have no reading comprehension
whatsoever ? What on earth do _you_ think "authortitative
decisionmaker" means ? Do you have access to a dictionary ?

> > The counterarguments to my objection seem to have been "we have always
> > done it this way". Well, I'm sorry I haven't always been paying 100%
> > attention to these things, but the fact that something has been done
> > wrong in the past is not a reason for doing it wrong now.
>
> I am cautious about changing wording without proper consideration (as per
> my next comment).

This is absolutely ridiculous. _I wrote those words_ for another
project which was actually an autocracy and they have been taken out
of context. Why do we need "proper consideration" to change wording
which is entirely wrong in this context, and replace it with something
sensible, but apparently we don't need "proper consideration" to pass
wrong wording.

> I disagree on this point. My position is that we should definitely have
> counsel review any proposed resolution template before we put it in to
> action. This need not be an onerous process. SFLC has been very quick to
> respond to our queries in the past. I am very impressed by the service
> they have been providing us.

This is absolutely ridiculous. This "resolution template" was put
into action without legal review and now you are treating it as some
kind of immutable gospel and refusing to budge from it!

Apparently you have convinced a majority of the board.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Don't they have any reading
comprehension either ???

Ian.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I'm afraid I've had a bit to drink now, but:

Uh oh, I think we're off to a bad start :)

> This is absolutely ridiculous. Do yuo have no reading comprehension
> whatsoever ? What on earth do _you_ think "authortitative
> decisionmaker" means ? Do you have access to a dictionary ?

Actually my reading comprehension is very good, but thanks for asking. I
explained my understanding of the term and the reasons behind it back on
May 25. No need to repeat them again.

>> I disagree on this point. My position is that we should definitely have
>> counsel review any proposed resolution template before we put it in to
>> action. This need not be an onerous process. SFLC has been very quick to
>> respond to our queries in the past. I am very impressed by the service
>> they have been providing us.
>
> This is absolutely ridiculous. This "resolution template" was put

Yes, so you've said twice already :)

> into action without legal review and now you are treating it as some
> kind of immutable gospel and refusing to budge from it!

Actually I have stated on numerous occassions my willingness to change the
wording. I just do not wish to change it in the manner you have
suggested.

In a worst case scenario the wording of a resolution could be interpretted
by a court of competent jurisdiction. Even if the original wording was
not reviewed by a lawyer I don't want to compound the problem by changing
the resolution without proper consideration at this time. There is
increased interested among FOSS projects to use fiscal sponsorship and
this is a good time to review the wording of the resolution template[1].

[1] I hadn't mentioned it earlier but moves towards this were already
afoot before you raised the concern.

> Apparently you have convinced a majority of the board.
> This is absolutely ridiculous. Don't they have any reading
> comprehension either ???

My experiences with the board would lead me to conclude that they have
excellent reading comprehension, some of them in several languages.

:)

Speaking only for myself as an individual director, as always.

Rob

--
Director, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Email: robert(at)spi-inc(dot)org Linux counter ID #16440
IRC: Solver (OFTC & Freenode)
Web: http://www.spi-inc.org
Free and Open Source: The revolution that quietly changed the world

> However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance
> structure. Therefore in case of dispute, SPI will follow what
> appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus view of the
> FFmpeg project's direct contributors.

As a member of SPI, I am opposed to accepting *any* associated project
on terms as vague as the above. We'd be opening ourselves up to
fighting out member project politics on the SPI mailing lists, something
no member I know of at SPI wants.

--Josh Berkus