SPI invited X.Org to join as Associated Project

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:03:24AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015, Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:43:17AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > >
> > > We'll get a summary sent out asap, in the meantime a few incomplete
> > answers
> > > from the back of the head:
> > > - timeline: we have 90 days to accept the invitation, rest TBA
> > > - asset list still needs to be compiled, assets will be transferred to
> > SPI.
> > >   we have 3 years after joining to do this. assets include domain names,
> > a
> > >   bit of hardware (that's mostly outdated/unused) and other IP dating
> > back
> > >   to the X Consortium that we're chasing up
> >
> > Really? Wow. That smells an awful lot like the open group. Maybe Egbert
> > can enlighten us all on what it took after the xfree86 fork to get x.org
> > out of the claws of that defunct organization.
> >
> > I am amazed though. It took the best part of a decade to finally become
> > 501c3. It then took the best part of a quarter iirc to lose that status
> > again, to have it reinstated afterwards with the help of SFLC. And then
> > what seems like a clone of the open group is quickly ran off to.
> >
> 
> TOG was a purely commercial group without any open source foundations. SPI
> grew out of Debian, who are many things but not commercial.
> 
> SPI already manages assets and trademarks on behalf of Debian, Arch,
> LibreOffice, Postgres, FFmpeg, Haskell, OpenEmbedded, Jenkins, and more;
> you can see this in one click from their site, as well as their
> bylaws. Every single one of these projects is larger than X.Org, and none
> of them have seemed to have a problem with it in the past 17 years. Their
> board is constituted of very long-standing community members who are deeply
> passionate about independent, community-run, projects.
> 
> Multiple members of the current board worked through the TOG fiasco, and I
> caught some of it in my time. And I think it's totally irrelevant. As,
> seemingly, do all SPI's member projects, and the SFLC, who advise SPI and
> have (AIUI) been advising the board through this whole process.
> 
> It's kind of disappointing that people don't seem to read the board meeting
> minutes (which have been issued for as long as I can remember), or the
> board update talk linked above, which have all repeatedly mentioned this.

What i read all the time is "the other kids do SPI too", not "we have to 
give up domain, servers, all other assets".

Luc Verhaegen.