1 |
Joshua, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 14:07 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: |
4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
6 |
> |
7 |
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:55:31 -0500 |
8 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Also good to know. I think we might keep some trustees around or some |
12 |
> > remains of our foundation after handing off the legal and accounting |
13 |
> > aspects to the SPI. So we could make it a requirement that at least |
14 |
> > one participates actively in the SPI on their board. Might be a |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Well you must be elected to get on the board. Elections are based on |
17 |
> being a contributing member. Obviously participating increases chances |
18 |
> of being on the board. |
19 |
|
20 |
My bad, I thought I read that. Sorry doing to much at once :) Didn't |
21 |
mean to imply direct board membership. More like long term intentions. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > council member. Really not sure depends on if we keep some sort of a |
24 |
> > board of trustees after the transition or not. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> |
27 |
> PostgreSQL has two positions within SPI: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> The Liaison (me) |
30 |
> The Board Advisor (Robert Treat) |
31 |
> |
32 |
> These don't have to be two people they can be one. So the immediately |
33 |
> way to benefit is to have two of your most visible (and responsible) |
34 |
> contributors be the two above for Gentoo. |
35 |
|
36 |
Ok good to know. Ideally we would have two, and likely all of our |
37 |
trustees a min be SPI members. But two of them fulfilling the liaison |
38 |
and Board Adviser roles. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > How did you all handle that at PostgreSQL? Did you have a board or |
41 |
> > foundational body before? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Yes and we voted to let our application lapse. We then created the |
44 |
> "PGFG" which is an informal group of contributors within PostgreSQL. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> The following is the charter for the fundraising group: |
47 |
> |
48 |
> http://fundraising.postgresql.org/Charter |
49 |
> |
50 |
> And this is how the fundraising group votes: |
51 |
> |
52 |
> http://fundraising.postgresql.org/Decisions |
53 |
|
54 |
Thanks for the links gave them a quick read. Will look research more in |
55 |
depth as time permits. Surely others will as well :) |
56 |
|
57 |
> > I can surely see one or more of us participating in the SPI. Questions |
58 |
> > there are: |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> > 1. What would be the requirements for acceptance? |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Your project has to be in line with our Corporate bylaws. I don't see a |
63 |
> problem here. |
64 |
|
65 |
Great |
66 |
|
67 |
> > 2. Would we be considered? |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Yes. I would sponsor a motion for you to be considered. If you get the |
70 |
> application in within the next several weeks you could be a member |
71 |
> before the end of February (assuming that all vote as I intend to at |
72 |
> this time). |
73 |
|
74 |
That would be really great to get this dealt with sooner than later. |
75 |
|
76 |
> > 3. Do you all have a list or etc like the SFC provided of things |
77 |
> > we need to have in order before we could proceed? |
78 |
> |
79 |
> I am having trouble parsing this sentence. I think everything is |
80 |
> covered in the two links I sent you previously: |
81 |
|
82 |
Well if we like needed to reinstate the New Mexico entity. Or if that |
83 |
was moot. Or any other legal requirements before being able to apply, or |
84 |
be considered for acceptance. |
85 |
|
86 |
Would assume we would need that, as to be able to hand over legal power |
87 |
to the SPI. |
88 |
|
89 |
> |
90 |
> > http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html |
91 |
> > http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/joining-spi-projects.html/ |
92 |
> |
93 |
> > 4. Anything else prior to the application process? |
94 |
> |
95 |
> I don't think so. You may want to review here: |
96 |
> |
97 |
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/by-laws |
98 |
> |
99 |
> Just so you are sure you feel comfortable with our mission :). I don't |
100 |
> see a problem. |
101 |
|
102 |
Yeah I am comfortable with all that I have read so far. For the same |
103 |
reasons we were considering the SFC. So not a big deal at all there. |
104 |
|
105 |
> > In order to apply, we will have to arrange a minimum a developer wide |
106 |
> > vote. Usually takes 1/2 months there, but might be possible to |
107 |
> > expedite. If we hunt each dev down and confirm they voted :) |
108 |
> > |
109 |
> |
110 |
> I know that feeling. |
111 |
> |
112 |
> > However we would have to discuss the liaison position. Or any Gentoo |
113 |
> > people that would sit on the SPI board. If trustees would remain, etc. |
114 |
> > |
115 |
> |
116 |
> Well see above. Board is an elected position and when picking your |
117 |
> Liaison remember that they effectively will control Gentoo's money. |
118 |
|
119 |
Things we need to discuss and decided upon. Offhand would be nice to |
120 |
have a remaining trustee board for Gentoo. With one designated as |
121 |
liaison, and others able to step in if that person needs to step down. |
122 |
Any decision approved by the group before the one liaison relays it to |
123 |
the SPI. Just some off the cuff thoughts. But really has to come from |
124 |
the community, either developer and user base. Or just developer. |
125 |
|
126 |
Thanks much for all of your info Joshua. I think I have most all I need |
127 |
to know now. We just need to figure out our course of action. |
128 |
|
129 |
-- |
130 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
131 |
Gentoo/amd64/Java |