On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Les Kitchen <[email protected]> wrote: > Reading it, though, did make me think of one issue: > Disincorporating and transferring assets (like domain ownership) > to LA would make for a single point of failure for incorporated > Linux SIGs in Australia. I can't think of any likely scenario > in which this would happen -- it's more a gut feeling about > single points of failure. If some weird unexpected glitch took > down LA, we'd still have LUV. And if some unexpected weird > glitch took down LUV, we'd still have LA. I think that > redundancy would be good for LA too.
Software in the Public Interest does for the Debian project (and many other free software projects) what we are considering having LA do for LUV. The difference is that LA has significantly more money than LUV while the majority of money in the SPI bank account is Debian funds. I think that the Debian-SPI money is comparable to the LCA-LA money. The whois entry for debian.org has [email protected] and [email protected] listed as contact addresses and [email protected] is only the tech address. So it seems that the Debian project trusts SPI more than you suggest LUV should trust LA. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
