Re: git as an sfc member project
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Oct 22, 2010, 19:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20101022193512.GB13059@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTi=6tvmTAfdyL-sKBsq+4OpFaQpZWT66ANESNapj@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:19:00PM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> > Probably the money that goes to the organization for such a project > > should _not_ go through the SFC, and would have to be handled > > separately. Which is no worse than JGit has it today; they just can't > > receive the SFC services as regular git can. > > This is fine with the JGit folks, for now anyway. We may revisit this > and have JGit join SFC at some point in the future. We might not.
Yeah, what I should have said to be more clear in my original email is: JGit can do what they like with SFC, but there is no reason for this caveat to prevent _Git_ from joining the SFC. The JGit folks are no worse off, and things are much better for Git.
I think it would be great if JGit could join SFC in the long run.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > Basically what we need to decide on before signing is: > > > > 1. Who should sign? These people are basically speaking for git as a > > community. Related to (2) below. > > The people listed in 2 as the leadership structure of git.
Agreed (I should have written point (2) first. ;) ).
Show 6 quoted lines
> I think a committee of at least 3 people and at most 5, any of whom > can be a benevolent SFC liasion, is fine. As far as selection goes, > the committee can elect or remove a member through a majority vote, > and should base its decisions based on surviving contributions to the > code base, but shouldn't be tied to that (just in case someone > contributes a lot of good code and then becomes a jerk).
That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure what documentation, if any, we need for such a structure. I guess we have to outline it in the agreement with the SFC, so that may be sufficient. We can ask Bradley about it, too.
Show 5 quoted lines
> But as you point out, there isn't much power involved here, so there > isn't a lot of concern of it being abused. The important thing (the > copyright on the code) is still held by individual contributors, so > there is very little value involved (just the handful of GSoC dollars > each year).
Yeah. I don't see any need to tie any decision on SFC interaction into any other part of how git is run. It should have nothing to do with how actual coding or release management works. I'm sure there will be some overlap in who is prominent in both areas, but it doesn't need to be so.
> > 3. How much money should we give to the SFC? > [...] > I agree, a non-zero number. 2-5%? Any idea what is typical?
Either in the draft agreement or in the notes the number 10% is thrown out as a common value for umbrella organizations to charge. That sounds reasonable to me, as they are probably saving us at least that much in taxes by being a proper non-profit.
-Peff