FFmpeg as SPI associated project

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project"):
> Stefano Sabatini writes ("Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project"):
> > In data Friday 2012-05-25 08:29:11 +1000, Robert Brockway ha scritto:
> > Yes I'm not an autocrat ;-). That said from my reading of the SPI
> > associated project HOWTO i see no mention that the liaison must
> > coincide with the project leader/maintainer/BDFL/whatever.
> 
> Yes, that's fine.
> 
> My problem is that the draft SPI resolution says:
> 
>   4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision
>       maker and SPI liaison for FFmpeg.  [...]
> 
> "Authoritative decisionmaker" is a mealy-mouthed way of saying
> "autocrat".  I should know: I wrote that wording for the benefit of a
> project which was in fact run as an autocracy.  And if you are in any
> doubt, please do consult a dictionary.  "The authoritative
> decisionmaker for FFmpeg" is the person whose decisions about FFmpeg
> are in themselves authoritative - ie, the autocrat.  Which FFmpeg
> doesn't have.

I have just seen, following your reference to the
`associated-project-howto', that that document contains the wording
`authoritative decisionmaker' which I am objecting to.

Who wrote the associated-project-howto and how can we get this fixed ?

At the moment it says:

   4. [Liaison] is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision maker
      and SPI liaison for [project].  Successors will be appointed
      [describe method of selection or election].

IMO it should say:

   4. [Liason] will be the initial liason to SPI from [project]
      and is responsible in the first instance for communicating the
      wishes of [project] to SPI.

      [SPI understands that decisions in [project] are made according
      to [process].]
      [or something similar]

      In case of dispute SPI will honour those decisions in accordance
      with the SPI Framework.

or something like that.

Ian.