On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:21:57AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > To elaborate on what Michael said, we need to ensure the money remains used
> > for
> > the purposes for which SPI is tax-exempt, and also honor the more specific
> > donor intent. For non-501(c)(3) organizations, additional steps
> It is de-motivating to libre software authors and potential authors
> that usage terms are abused. SFLC has helped in that regard. I'm
> looking for a ways to make GPL licensing more enforceable, even when
> contributors have become unreachable or it is impractical to trace
> who wrote or impro
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 01:38:21PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> My experience in volunteer projects is to informally poll the
> potential developers for the implementation language and/or platform
> and select the one with the most widespread willingness to use/learn
> it.
This is the key point,
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:14:47AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I just think there's an implementation problem. Today I think the DDs
> would only fully trust an organization that they entirely own, if that,
> and I missed that fact entirely back then.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion vis-a
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:10AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> So it seems the previous time(s) the Debian Project Leader was
> involved with SPI's board discussing this might as well have not
> happened, because we need to go through the whole tedious procedure
> again, to get SPI to pick up a task it
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:58:17AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I assure you that I can find an significant majority of absurdity
>> regardless of the jurisdiction.
> Laws are just the structures we put together so that we can live with each
> other. At least in a democr
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 01:36:57PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> I have to pick a level of risk to worry about, and I'm much less worried
> about the risk of people inventing disagreements about the DPL's
> identity for sake of DoSing the board than I am about the very real
> likelihood that ther
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:04:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Why? SPI already has policies about dealing with disputes and
> conflicts within associated projects. They can all make the requests,
> but probably most would be invalid. Adjudication is likely to be
> fairly simple, asking the project s
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:28:41AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > If however the SPI is responsible for making a judgement call about
> > the murky nature of Debian politics, particularly since certain
> > aspects of Debian's policies and procedures are not necessarily
> > clearly defined (or at lea
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:15:48PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I don't see how clause 8 hurts - so what if there's disagreement? The eighth
> clause simply says that the SPI board will listen to Debian developers *and
> anyone else* saying something changed or is disputed about the DPL or the
> sec
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:19:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I actually think this is a point that (nearly?) everyone involved in
> this discussion agrees with. If SPI is to avoid "sticking its nose"
> into Debian project internals, then the resolution under discussion is
> an important tool in
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 07:53:12AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I've had some
> interesting conversations with developers on three continents in recent
> weeks about the power of a vocal minority to influence, distract, and
> even disrupt a community operating largely by consensus. My personal
> t
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:59:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Then that's something for Debian to resolve, up to and including
> > appointing a new project representative.
>
> Err, boggle. Firstly, dealing with that that way in Debian might well
> be too slow. And secondly, the representative
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
