Resolution 2018-07-11.mm.1: Arch Linux 32 as associated project

[Ian Jackson]

Martin Michlmayr writes ("Re: Resolution 2018-07-11.mm.1: Arch Linux 32 as associated project"):
...
> Anyway, it's not clear to me what "nominated charity" means in the
> clause.  Is that something the project nominates when they join (as
> you sort of did when you indicated a preference to give it to Arch) or
> something the board "nominates"? (but then "nominates" is a weird word).

You indeed point out a deficiency in the standard wording.

Also, I would like to say that the purpose of standard wordings is not
to be immutable.  It is fine to change them if we understand the
reasons why the standard wording is the way it is.  In this case, we
don't want to nail things down which may turn out to be unworkable in
the distant and unknowable future.

How about the following alternative standard wording:

  3. If the last known SPI liaison for Arch Linux 32 is missing in
  action, and no new SPI liaison is appointed for two consecutive
  years the associated project is deemed defunct.

  The SPI Board will try to identify a similar successor project; SPI
  will transfer the assets to the successor's US charity, or hold them
  in trust for the successor.  Failing that the assets will become
  part of the SPI general fund.

Significant differences:

 - Say that the successor:
     - is up to the Board
     - should be `similar'

 - `Will' rather than `may', since I don't think really we expect the
   board to leave assets attached to a defunct earmark.

 - SPI general fund more clearly the last resort.

Technical differences:

 - Wording reorganised.

 - Mention the possibility that the assets would end up with SPI
    but with the successor's earmark.

 - Remove unclear `nominated'.

> If it's something the project nominates, we need to implement a way to
> track it (i.e. write it down somewhere) so we'll remember in X
> years/decades (and how do we know the org originally nominated doesn't
> change over time...).

Quite.

> (Adding xnox who I believe came up with the language or might
> remember who did.)

I think it's after my time.  It's possible that the intent was to
allow the defunct project to nominate its successor but there are
obvious practical problems with that...

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.