SPI invited X.Org to join as Associated Project

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015, Martin Peres wrote:
...
> and our plans to move to SPI [1]. Here is the git repo for the bylaws [2] and
> here is a copy of the repo accessible via cgit [3].
> 
> There are two branches:
> - master: Current bylaws, in a latex/pdf form
> - SPI: The changes I proposed for the SPI merge
...
> [2] http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/foundation/bylaws.git
> [3] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mperes/xorg_bylaws/

Sorry to bring up something over a year old.
But that git branch has no updates for years and the cgit interface does 
show commits but they don't match the ProposedBylaws as link in the 
election ballot. (I does contain some of the changes though.)

Where is the complete up-to-date (git?) history for the proposed bylaws?

The website http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/ says "projects 
*MAY* transfer intangible assets" (emphasis mine) but the proposed 
bylaws says:

  Some powers are held by SPI only and shall not be possessed nor 
  exercised by the Board.  These powers include:

  (i)    Holding funds or intangible assets (trademarks or other 
  Intellectual Property);

The proposed bylaws don't explain about the transfer of these 
intellectual properties.

Another example is SPI says they "can sign contracts" while the proposed 
bylaws says signing contracts is a power held only SPI and "SPI is 
however the only entity habilitated to sign contracts, when mandated by 
the Board." (I think it means only SPI is fit or proper for signing 
contracts.)   By the way, do we know how much time it takes for a 
details to be sent to SPI so they can sign a contract? Overnight? a 
month?

The proposed bylaws has various text about defining equipment and assets 
owned by X.or, but is unclear about SPI's service of "Substantial 
equipment, software or other assets valued at over $300 which an 
associated project purchases with SPI funds are owned by SPI."

The by-laws should be clear on what services they are specifically 
allowing SPI to offer, what services that currently choosing not to 
offer, and potentially say whether undefined/unstated services are or 
are not using SPI. (For example, will X.org use the technical services 
such as authoritative DNS?)

SPI should be documented better and also mentioned in Definitions.

The proposed bylaws changed generic "X Window System" to "accelerated 
graphics stack" and "this graphics stack" in the purpose. Using the term 
"accelerated" and "stack" may suggest that things like test clients and 
(primitive) apps and documentation may not be included. (It was vague 
before I understand.)

The comment about genders seems out of place.

It doesn't mention anymore if X.org is non-profit. It doesn't mention 
what will happen if SPI agreemen is terminated.

The proposed bylaws don't really explain that SPI has some 
financial costs and what they are and what will be used for.

Also there were questions in this same January 2015 thread that don't 
appear to be answered in the proposed by-laws.

Again sorry I am bringing this up so late. But the elections ballot I 
thought was for the board only and then saw was for the by-laws too so I 
read more carefully.