Jimmy,
> I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI to have to
> monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they considered the arrangement
> with Debian to be a mistake which we shouldn't repeat. Can additional people
> give their thoughts?
Actually, that's not what
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 18:37 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary
> > (or some other credible source) told us something else, we
> > wouldn't expect Debian to provide a third person to distinguish
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project [revised]"):
> I thought other people were explicitly saying they didn't want SPI
> to have to monitor internal OpenWRT operations, and that they
> considered the arrangement with Debian to be a mistake
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 14:43 -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 06:37:54PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
> > some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
> > Debian to provide a third p
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 18:37 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as
> associated project[revised]"):
> > 6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the
> SPI Board
> > unless each liaison, within that time, has acc
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 06:37:54PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If Debian's Project Leader told us one thing, but the Secretary (or
> some other credible source) told us something else, we wouldn't expect
> Debian to provide a third person to distinguish (as if we were some
> kind of computational b
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project [revised]"):
> 6. This invitation will lapse 60 days after it is approved by the SPI Board
> unless each liaison, within that time, has accepted it on behalf of
> OpenWRT, agreed with the other
Hi Ian,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 02:09:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I would suggest the wording below.
Great. I'll adopt it. I'm also going to add one more bit about deciding between
the two liaisons via what Gregers Petersen is calling an "odd case contact", in
case the two main liaisons disa
Hi MJ,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 03:10:57PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> "I will try to coordinate with OpenWRT in a real-time conversation to
> find out more of what they want, and will ask our lawyers any questions
> necessary to resolve the issue of whether SPI would be suitable for
> them." -- Jimmy K
Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 1) What was the resolution of potential legal liabilities for OpenWRT?
> > Not that this means we should reject them, just that we should be informed.
>
> I think you're confusing this with the Helios [...]
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated
project"):
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > How does decision-making work? If one says yes, and one says no, what
> > happens? This requires clarification.
>
> Decisions are made ac
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:51 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> One of the two needs to be the main liaison, and the other
> an alternate.
I agree.
Bdale
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
12 matches
Mail list logo
