[Buildbot-devel] Discussion of the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement with Conservancy

Dustin J. Mitchell dustin at v.igoro.us
Mon Apr 15 18:11:50 UTC 2013

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Tom Prince <tom.prince at ualberta.net> wrote:
>> "Project Leadership Committee"
> This is rather staid. On the other hand, I don't have a better
> suggetion, but I'd encourage suggetions.

I'm open, too.  I wasn't feeling very creative.

> Is this enough of a concern to be necesary? The current likely
> composition of the PLC doesn't seem to require this.

It's the sort of thing that's easier to introduce before you need it.
The two risks I see are:
 * PLC slowly gravitates toward one heavy user, and the perception of
ownership starts to spread
 * A startup decides to form around Buildbot, and its employees start
to dominate on the basis of having the most time to devote to the

> If we are going to spell this out, then I'd be inclined to pick
> something like condorcet[1] rather than simple majority.

I'm anticipating the votes being yea/nay votes, in which case both are
equivalent.  But perhaps this doesn't really belong in the FSA.

> I'm not at all opposed to transparency. But, I think there will be
> issues that should be handled privately, and we should be clear on how
> they are handled. I'm thinking, in particular, if we are hiring
> developers, for example.

This is another reason not to try to spell this out in the FSA.  Once
the PLC is defined, we'll establish some simple procedures internally
and write them down in the wiki.


More information about the devel mailing list