> The point though, is that > some sort of precise *identity* needs to attach to members.
At the moment this is expected to be by nominated representative to the management board. If someone is representing a project publically and they shouldn't be, then I think that would be fairly obvious. > I think "project" is too vague and amorphous a term. I guess libre software projects are amorphous. They aren't individuals, or companies, or organisations in the traditional sense. > I'd strongly recommend holding off > the *legal* establishment of any entity until a broader consensus > exists. Quite right. linuxaudio.org has no legal status for the time being. > I suspect that a lot of the suspicion which has been > expressed in this thread was engendered by the appearance that much > of the prior discussion to this point took place via private > communications. Hardly private, since everyone seems to have found out about it within days. I just don't believe in opening my mouth in public until I've got something worthwhile to say. > there does come a time when those discussions need to "go public". Absolutely. > Such public discussion needs to happen well before any "official" > establishment of an organization. But then we're back to discussing something that doesn't exist. > Part of the confusion, too, comes from some vagueness in your > terms. What exactly do you mean when you say you're "launching" > Linuxaudio.org today? Making the website more obvious, a press release. That's all. Quite honestly, if I had proposed this idea with no support from the community it would have been shot down in flames - and rightly so. Cheers Daniel
