Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If you are elected and your attendance does not improve, can we expect
> you to resign?
>
OK. Campaign promise.
> The board does not necessarily have representation from all member
> organisations. I know that Postgresql has funding from bodies who would
> not necessarily be happy with being associated with an anti-software
> patent organisation. How would you deal with member organisations that
> hold different political stances to you?
>
SPI has contributing members, and they vote. Funding sponsors don't
vote. I am absolutely sure how SPI's contributing members would vote on
this issue, and pretty sure how Postgresql's would vote too. Postgresql
is a project that is particularly threatened by software patenting.
> "* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of the
> Internet"
>
I went over the by-law missions in another email. A number of them fit.
> I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
> remit.
>
Let's not call it lobbying. Some of that can't be done within a 501(c)3,
and some can. It's education.
> I'm not sure that that's obvious. Does having multiple groups arguing
> the same general point not risk the fundamental argument being lost
> amongst the less important differences?
Actually, it creates a constituency. One of the current problems of EFF
is that they are sometimes seen as alone in this.
> I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines
> Debian's role with respect to SPI.
I don't know why that would be insulting. The social contract doesn't
have to define anything about SPI, it defines a good mission for Debian.
> Given the number of times you've resigned for Debian
Once? Please stop beating dead horses of 1998.
> It clearly insinuated that due to John's criticism of you, you felt that you
> couldn't trust him to run an election.
It was improper process for an election. Especially the posting on
spi-general before my platform was posted there. I did not write
anything about trust.
> Of course, changing the by-laws would require convincing people that
> mail was a better alternative to IRC.
Our meetings are far outside of the by-laws right now. Read article 4.
But I would not have to change the by-laws to hold most meetings over email.
> It's not obvious that you'd win.
> If you didn't, and if meetings continued to be held on IRC, what would
> your response be?
>
Attend them.
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general
