[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Application to SPI as associated project

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Thursday 2012-06-07 11:07:05 +0200, Stefano Sabatini encoded:
> On date Wednesday 2012-05-09 00:10:13 +0200, Stefano Sabatini encoded:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > we are considering to apply to SPI - Software in the Public Interest -
> > as associated project, see:
> > http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
> [...]
> 
> Followup:
> 
> we sent the application, and after a few adjustements it has been
> accepted and will be discussed at the next SPI meeting, which will be
> held in date Thursday 14th June at 20:00 UTC in #spi on
> irc.spi-inc.org:
> http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2012/2012-06-14/
> 
> The meeting will be public, and interested people can join the channel
> and assist.

The FFmpeg association with SPI was discussed and voted during the SPI
meeting, and approved. Check in attachment the log of the relevant
part of the meeting.

I'll write a new mail with some operative proposals as I'll have the
formal stuff fixed, which will be hopefully soon.

In particular:
* we need to define the charged liaison (I'm available for keeping
  this role now that the application has been approved)
* we need to add a News entry declaring the association with SPI (but
  again, wait for me to fix the formal stuff before doing it)
* we need to start to think about how to integrate a "donation"
  section + button in the FFmpeg website
* we may need to define in a more formal way the "decision process"
  for the whole project
-- 
FFmpeg = Frenzy & Fascinating Mystic Pitiless Erroneous Gorilla
-------------- next part --------------
Jun 14 22:17:18 <bdale>	[item 7.2, Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)
Jun 14 22:17:18 <bdale>	Robert?
Jun 14 22:17:32 <Solver>	ok...
Jun 14 22:17:52 <Solver>	so as you know there was a concern raised by Ian Jackson about the wording of the proposal
Jun 14 22:18:08 <Solver>	my position is that the concern relates to the wording of the template, not this proposal
Jun 14 22:18:15 <bdale>	I agree
Jun 14 22:18:23 <Solver>	i believe the concern over the wording should not effect the vote on this proposal at all
Jun 14 22:18:30 *	devil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
Jun 14 22:18:40 <bdale>	it would be ok to suggest an amendment to fix the wording, though, if you wish
Jun 14 22:18:41 <schultmc>	he sent mail to -general today that suggested a re-wording of some of this resolution
Jun 14 22:19:02 <Solver>	if the wording is an issue we will need to go and fix all of the old resolutions anyway
Jun 14 22:19:03 <Clint>	have there been situations before where we've declared someone an authoritative decisionmaker when they weren't?
Jun 14 22:19:07 <bdale>	in the past, we've even word-smithed in these meetings, though I discourage it because it's slow
Jun 14 22:19:30 <Solver>	I am cautious about making up wording on the spot or under time pressure
Jun 14 22:19:30 <Noodles>	We've liked to have some defined way we can tell who's the decision maker for the project.
Jun 14 22:19:37 *	devil (~devil at dslb-088-072-196-186.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #spi
Jun 14 22:19:46 <bdale>	Solver: I disagree with the notion that fixing means we have to go backwards in time, it's ok to fix forward and live with what's there until/unless it causes a problem
Jun 14 22:19:56 <Noodles>	Like a mention on the official website or some easy way we as an organisation can verify what the project wants.
Jun 14 22:20:00 <Solver>	there was little discussion on the mailing list aspect of the resolution
Jun 14 22:20:12 *	devil_ (~devil at dslb-088-072-196-186.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #spi
Jun 14 22:20:12 <Clint>	also "consensus" is misspelled
Jun 14 22:20:59 <bdale>	so we have three choices.  vote on it as currently worded.  fix the wording here and vote the amended resolution.  table until next month when hopefully we'd have fixed text.  opinions?
Jun 14 22:21:01 <Solver>	Clint: ok can we fix the spelling in the offical version
Jun 14 22:21:25 <Clint>	i oppose rushing
Jun 14 22:21:26 <Solver>	I don't want ffmpeg to be disadvantaged on what is in effect a wider problem
Jun 14 22:21:30 <jcristau>	Clint: it should be spelled "liason"?
Jun 14 22:21:30 <bdale>	is the ffmpeg project under time pressure to accept a donation or anything like that?
Jun 14 22:21:39 <Clint>	jcristau: ttb
Jun 14 22:21:56 <Solver>	saste: is there a time pressure on the ffmpeg project?
Jun 14 22:22:08 <saste>	bdale: not that i know, but of course the soon the better for us
Jun 14 22:22:27 <saste>	considering that we'll need some time to correctly setup all the stuff (website and all)
Jun 14 22:22:32 <bdale>	saste: put differently, is it ok if we defer until next month's meeting actually voting the resolution?
Jun 14 22:22:43 <saste>	i'm not against
Jun 14 22:22:55 <bdale>	I see no objections to the association at all, this is just a question of getting the text right
Jun 14 22:23:20 <bdale>	Solver: ok, this is your resolution, what would you like to do with it?
Jun 14 22:23:20 <Solver>	is there a concern about the use of the mailing list in the resolution?  I had expected that to get discussed on list but it wasn't
Jun 14 22:23:42 <Solver>	Ian Jackson's concern is about a different part of the resolution
Jun 14 22:23:51 <Clint>	i am not concerned about the mailing list either
Jun 14 22:24:23 <saste>	yes, also please state it clearly what we (ffmpeg) need to do in order to fix the application text, and if we need to fix the governance structure anyhow
Jun 14 22:24:50 <bdale>	ok, a few comments
Jun 14 22:25:02 *	ttr (~Adium at dslb-088-064-071-033.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #spi
Jun 14 22:25:13 <bdale>	in an ideal world, projects would have a well-defined process for determining who speaks authoritatively for the project, and our resolutions would just reference that
Jun 14 22:25:22 <Solver>	bdale: I had hoped to proceed with it today
Jun 14 22:25:31 <bdale>	when there is no such well defined process already in place, we end up codifying more in the resolution than we necessarily want to
Jun 14 22:25:32 <Solver>	but only if the board is ready to proceed
Jun 14 22:25:52 <Clint>	saste: consider what would have happened if ffmpeg were an spi associated project when the libav thing occurred
Jun 14 22:25:57 <Solver>	the mailing list component did make me wonder
Jun 14 22:26:01 <Solver>	I reviewed other resolutions
Jun 14 22:26:19 <Solver>	and concluded it wasn't so different to Arch Linux which, IIRC, references a group of developers
Jun 14 22:26:34 <bdale>	yes, we've approved various forms in the past
Jun 14 22:27:47 <Solver>	if the only problem is the use of the wording "authoritative decision maker" then I would hope that we pass the resolution and find a systemic fix later (assuming the wording is a problem, which isn't established)
Jun 14 22:27:47 <bdale>	I personally would vote to approve the resolution as written, but am comfortable waiting until next month if that would yield better text everyone can feel good about *and* we're not overly inconveniencing the project, by which I mean making it impossible for them to accept a known inbound donation or something like that
Jun 14 22:28:17 <bdale>	how do others feel?  should we just call a vote?
Jun 14 22:28:33 <schultmc>	we have accepted donations prior to a pending association
Jun 14 22:28:48 <bdale>	yes, we have, though we try not to when we don't need to
Jun 14 22:28:53 <schultmc>	right
Jun 14 22:29:38 <bdale>	is there any discussion about substantive issues related to associating ffmpeg?
Jun 14 22:29:57 <Noodles>	I don't think I have any concerns about them as an associated project.
Jun 14 22:30:15 <Noodles>	I'd prefer something firmer for the process of knowing who we talk to, but not enough to vote against it as it stands.
Jun 14 22:30:22 <bdale>	if not, then I think we should call a vote and let folks either accept the wording as it's there or vote against it, knowing it'll be back next month in that case.  make sense?
Jun 14 22:30:31 <Solver>	bdale: agreed
Jun 14 22:30:32 *	Clint nods.
Jun 14 22:30:47 <Noodles>	So vote?
Jun 14 22:30:51 <bdale>	lets
Jun 14 22:30:53 <Noodles>	Voting started, 6 people (clint,schultmc,solver,bdale,ganneff,noodles) allowed to vote on Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project). - You may vote yes/no/abstain only, type !vote $yourchoice now.
Jun 14 22:31:00 <Clint>	!vote no
Jun 14 22:31:03 <Solver>	!vote yes
Jun 14 22:31:06 <Ganneff>	!vote yes
Jun 14 22:31:08 <bdale>	!vote yes
Jun 14 22:31:08 <schultmc>	!vote yes
Jun 14 22:31:12 <Noodles>	!vote yes
Jun 14 22:31:17 <Noodles>	Current voting results for "Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)": Yes: 5, No: 1, Abstain: 0, Missing: 0 ()
Jun 14 22:31:20 <Noodles>	Voting for "Resolution 2012-05-25.rtb.1 (FFmpeg as SPI associated project)" closed.
Jun 14 22:31:30 <bdale>	ok
Jun 14 22:31:32 <Solver>	thanks everyone
Jun 14 22:31:52 <Solver>	I'll follow up on other business about that wording...
Jun 14 22:32:08 <bdale>	thanks .. if you'd take the lead on a template update, I'm happy to help
Jun 14 22:32:53 <Solver>	thanks.  as per what I said on list, I will refer it to SFLC (I have not done so yet but will within a couple of days).  that's all I was going to put in other business on that topic, anyway
Jun 14 22:33:04 <bdale>	Noodles: since saste is on channel, want to do the official invite now?
Jun 14 22:33:29 <Noodles>	saste: As you can see we have voted to accept ffmpeg as an SPI associated project. Do you wish to accept on behalf of the project?
Jun 14 22:33:41 <saste>	Noodles: yes i do
Jun 14 22:33:50 <bdale>	cool.  saste, welcome to SPI!
Jun 14 22:33:51 <Noodles>	You'll need to send me (secretary at spi-inc.org) a logo and some blurb for you /projects/ page.
Jun 14 22:34:00 <saste>	thank you