Re: [draft] Guidelines for Equipment and Service Donations
In message <19990309114421.E27181@boof.novare.net>, "Ean R . Schuessler"
>On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 11:32:19AM -0500, Nils Lohner wrote:
>> Hmmm... that would make a lot of things tougher, hosting of a mailing
>> list, offering some FTP space, at this point you're tying SPI and the
>> projects down in terms of their reactivity. I'd suggest not putting
>> but rather something along the lines of 'within the SPI goals' to leave
>> general. Plus you said donated- if equipment is donated it's SPI's and
>> the donor has no say, if it's a service/loan, then that could apply.
>> I'd still rather leave his resolution general and ask the donor to put
>> that clause into the service agreement at the start of the loan- makes
>> thing easier on all parties I think.
>That is exactly what I am doing. Just like the Debian packaging policies
>tie down a developer's "reactivity". Donating services is the only thing
>that SPI does. The concept that this should be completely free-form and
>not depend on making a project "officially SPI endorsed" is a bit odd.
OK, I see where you're going... maybe officially endorsed is a bit too
much. SPI is intended to provide services to the projects that don't have
the HW etc. to do it with... they need to share and be compatible with the
SPI goals, but I don't think officially endorsed sounds right. I wouldn't
call a project that's got a mailing list hosted by us an 'official'
project... maybe that should be reserved for projects for whom we handle
money and hardware, not just mail, web, ftp, or cvs space...
>> Not sure I agree with this... lots of little projects can use a mailing
>> list, a little FTP space, etc. but don't necessarily need to become SPI
>> affiliated. Remember, affiliation means we manage money, equipment
>> for them. I think it's a good idea if the bigger ones become
>> but smaller ones I would like exempt from this requirement.
>SPI's mission is to give aid and assistance. If SPI gives aid and
>to a project then it is "SPI associated". Perhaps we can have different
>levels of affiliation that provide different levels of service.
That I agree with... the question is why would we need to define different
levels? I agree we should track project sizes, and the services they're
using, but do we need to define levels? As above, maybe money/hw handling
vs. handling that plus the rest?
ps. this is getting off topic from the equipment guidelines a little. I
still like the guidelines that I initially proposed. I'll repost that
with a few changes.
>Ean Schuessler As above
>Novare International Inc. so below
>--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke