Resolution 2009-03-16.jrk.1: OpenWRT as associated project [revised]

Josh Berkus josh at
Wed Mar 18 04:25:54 UTC 2009


> 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 I'm personally worried about.  What I'm 
worried about is:

-- If Andy says "Pay $628 for travel expenses to Joe Speaker", do we 
have to check with Gregers before paying?  Or Not?

-- What if Gregers says, "No, don't pay that."?  What if it happens 
after we've already cut the check?

-- If both Andy and Gregers attend a board meeting, and one supports a 
measure and the other doesn't, what should we think the position of 
OpenWRT on the measure is?

-- Why should OpenWRT have two people speaking for it at a Board meeting 
when other projects have only one (excepting board members, of course)? 
  If one one is going to speak at a time, why designate them both as 

In other words, I'm not worried about a crisis of representation, but 
rather about day-to-day confusion about what the OpenWRT project 
actually wants.  Having two liaisons at the same time is just begging 
for that kind of confusion.  Have the guys take alternate months or 
something, I don't care, but let's not have two at the same time.

I also think that with two liaisons, Andy and Gregers each are going to 
think more about their own opinions and less about representing their 


More information about the Spi-general mailing list