11:12 p.m.
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 07:50:22AM -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
[Some very good ideas on governance discussion, sorry for skipping
due to time]
The next step on the critical path seems to be:
Make sure that we have a convincing placeholder for governance,
something like drafting a list of 4 or 5 people we have asked to
draft the governance structure. That way the web page can
convincingly state that we are working on that. A lot of this will
depend on who wants to volunteer a solid bit of time on GNU assembly
leadership :-)
(Note that if we become a Software Freedom Conservancy project,
Conservancy will require a project leadership committee of some 3
people or more, so getting that in place will be important if we
then submit a full package.)
Other things can probably wait, but we might want to write a
preliminary letter to Conservancy. There is an evaluation committee
meeting tomorrow (then one in a month) and getting a preliminary
letter in would mean that some informal conversation in the evaluation
committee would put us on Conservancy's radar.
So I did quickly look at this, but I think we should take this month
to be a bit more prepared. Besides having at least an faint idea of
what kind of governance structure we want, we should probably also
talk to the maintainers/steering committees of the various packages
that currently have an explicit fsf "fund" (GNU Guix, GNU Mailman, GNU
MediaGoblin, GNU Octave, GNUstep and the GNU Toolchain) to see if they
want to join or if they would like to do things separately.
I recognize some names on the evaluation committee:
https://sfconservancy.org/about/eval-committee/ So I think they are
already aware we and/or other subgroups of GNU will come and apply.
Cheers,
Mark