On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:41:12 -0700 Ken G. Brown" <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
> At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>>On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <kbrown at mac.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
>>>> Ken> presence?
>>>>
>>>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom
> Conservancy
>>>> within the next few weeks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
>>>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
>>>
>>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not
> what the previous
> board or board members or vocal minorities say.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your responses.
>>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
>>>
>>> Ken G. Brown
>>
>>You really want a "me too" response?
>>
>>Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community
> members I'll
> try to summarize:
>>
>>Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years.
> It's where the
> term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a
> non-profit
> organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so
> a while ago we
> decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an
> organization precisely
> for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known:
>>
>>	http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
>>
>>The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project.
> That's one of the
> major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now
> literally days away from
> that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC
> lawyers for far
> more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
>>
>>I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board
> member or not,
> spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to
> support this, and I
> don't see the point of your question.
>>
>>But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
>>
>>- Bert -
> 
> It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want
> to give the
> community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.

It is the nature of communal government that no individual controls what is good for the community. There is no shortage of politicians who feel otherwise.

> 
> I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it
> might be good
> for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even
> discuss it a
> bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
> 
> One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak
> Oversight
> Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community;  'Terms of
> Reference',
> 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What
> gives the
> board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the
> SOB signing on
> behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?

The usual practice is for the board to elect a president, or to have the community elect the officers the same time they elect the board. The president would sign, on behalf of the board. The board is empowered by elections held by a self-organizing group of people. There is no higher authority.

Cobalt and the others are distinct communities. The relicensing effort will affect them to the extent they rely on the Squeak code base. From what I have seen this is all good.

The decision to join the SFC can be reversed in the future should Squeak grow large enough to want to bring those functions in-house.


-- 
Gary Dunn, Honolulu
osp at aloha.com
http://openslate.net/
http://e9erust.blogspot.com/
Sent from a Newton 2100 via Mail V