[Board] Motion regarding Systems Support for non-OSGeo Projects, and Fusion (and Motion)

[Arnulf Christl]

-0

The simple reason being that 2 business days is impossible for me to
handle, especially if this include looking into things from a political or
legal point of view.

I only said -0 because you mention that hobu explicitly wanted us to
consider this. If you would extend the period for consideration to 5
business days I am +1 on this.

To be honest I don't really know why the OSGeo board should have an
opinion or even veto rights on this process at all? SAC is all volunteers,
telascience infrastructure is donated to OSGeo without any strings
attached so what is the board deciding here anyway?

>From this perspective I wonder whether this is meant to provide some sort
of shielding mechanism against overwork and project inundation of SAC that
would endanger operation of OSGeo infrastructure. If this is the issue
then I think we should defer this decision until we better understand what
this motion is about. I don't think it will be required to wait until the
next board meeting though. Hopefully I will catch some of the people
involved on #telascience and can then change my vote to plusone for this
motion.

Best regards,
Arnulf.

On Mon, December 10, 2007 14:53, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
>
>> +1. like Jo I trust those at SAC doing the sensible :-)
>>
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 9:28 PM, Jo Walsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 11:01:28PM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Motion: Provision of systems support services by SAC for non-OSGeo
>>>> project will hereafter require a motion approving the support by SAC
>>>> *and* a
>>>> failure to object by any board member given two business days of
>>>> notice of the intention to support.
>>>
>>> +1, I trust hobu and the good people at SAC not to make crazy
>>> decisions.
>
> Folks,
>
>
> I would like to stress that it still falls to the board to review and
> potentially object when we are notified of a pending "intent to provide
> services".  In particular I believe Howard wants the board to do the
> "political" review of whether a project is appropriate for hosting
> at OSGeo.  The intent of the motion is to expedite the process by turning
> this review in an opportunity to object, instead of a full board motion.
>
> There is no *need* to trust SAC to do the sensible, and SAC wants board
> review.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> ---------------------------------------+----------------------------------
> ----
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows |
> http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>


-- 
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com