SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1 - Chakra as an associated project

[Ian Jackson]

Robert Brockway writes ("Re: SPI resolution 2014-03-20.rtb.1 - Chakra as an associated project"):
> 4. H W Tovetjaern is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
> and SPI liaison for Chakra.

(As I have said before) the purpose of this part of the SPI project
resolution template is to document SPI's understanding of the
project's governance model.

Is Chakra's governance model autocracy, then ?  I don't think that's
the case.  The webserver is down but http://chakraos.org/wiki/ refers
to "The Chakra Team" and
http://chakraos.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions
has a (sadly dead) link to something called the "core development
team".

I think we should stop using this phrase "authoritative decision
maker".  It implies that the project is an autocracy, but not everyone
is aware of that.  If the project is an autocracy we should say that.
But most projects aren't.  Self-perpetuating oligarchies are much more
common.

How about we use one of the following templates:

  | Foo Project's governance model is currently an autocracy,
  | with Alice Jones in charge and Bob Kramer as deputy.

  | Foo Project's governance model is currently a self-perpetuating
  | oligarchy.  At the time of writing the {core team | executive
  | board | committers} are Alice Jones, Bob Kramer, Carol Liszt and
  | Dave Macallan.

  | Foo Project's governance structure and current role-holders are
  | documented on their web page at <URL> and <URL>, and will be
  | honoured by SPI.

  | Foo Project does not currently have an agreed governance
  | structure; in the unlikely and unfortunate event that SPI would
  | have to decide between the wishes of competing factions, SPI would
  | do so based on the merits.

followed by in each case

  | The initial SPI liason for Foo will be Eve Nieder.

In this case I would defer to any comments from the Chakra project but
I think the intent of the "core development team" probably that that
team is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.

I also think the drafts of these resolutions should be sent to some
appropriate list belonging to the project, if there is one.  That way
if the person drafting the resolution has misunderstood the project's
governance structure (or there is a dispute) it can be straightened
out.

Thanks,
Ian.