hlapp
commented
5 years ago @mr-c I think you expressed interest in helping with review and feedback during the draft stage? You can read the current draft version as per this PR.
Closed hlapp closed 4 years ago
hlapp
commented
5 years ago @mr-c I think you expressed interest in helping with review and feedback during the draft stage? You can read the current draft version as per this PR.
mr-c
commented
5 years ago Other than meeting the requirements to join, this policy does not tell me what would be different for a project after it become officially affiliated with the OBF. Is it just access to the brand? Are their other benefits?
Could an affiliated project be fiscally sponsored another entity besides SPI and still be OBF affiliated?
hlapp
commented
5 years ago Other than meeting the requirements to join, this policy does not tell me what would be different for a project after it become officially affiliated with the OBF. Is it just access to the brand? Are their other benefits?
The FAQ does say something about it. Did you read that? Feedback to that section is welcome.
As for the policy document, I would argue that while understanding the benefits is clearly of interest to prospective member projects, stipulating them is outside of the scope of this policy. Including them in the policy document would mean that every time the benefits change, the policy would have to be updated.
Could an affiliated project be fiscally sponsored another entity besides SPI and still be OBF affiliated?
Yes, absolutely. Even OBF itself can also be fiscally sponsored by another entity and still remain fiscally sponsored by SPI.
Update: added link to FAQ document.
mr-c
commented
5 years ago Ah, I hadn't seen the FAQ, I only looked at the link you gave. My questions are answered by https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/pull/44/files?short_path=7eb18d5#diff-7eb18d56ed380c28eed1018c24a1a164 thanks!
nlharris
commented
5 years ago I can look at this on Sunday (after my grant proposal is in), but have no objections to it being merged if other OBF Board members think it looks good.
hlapp
commented
5 years ago Just for clarity, this will remain unratified until formally approved by the Board and membership. IMO we should not merge this (or any other policy addition or change) until it is formally approved, because otherwise we would then have to clearly distinguish between ratified and unratified policy documents on the master branch. At present, this distinction is clear and transparent by what is and is not on the master branch.
hlapp
commented
5 years ago @gedankenstuecke it looks like I accidentally clicked (tapped) your PR approval, which resulted in a re-request. Sorry about that. It looks like I can't undo that. Would you mind re-approving the PR.
@nlharris would you mind formally approving the PR.
nlharris
commented
5 years ago Hilmar, as I commented 2 days ago, I can look at this on Sunday (after my grant proposal is in), but have no objections to it being merged if other OBF Board members think it looks good.
nlharris
commented
5 years ago I did notice (in my brief glance) some awkward wording that I want to edit, but if you prefer, I can approve it now and do a PR later with my suggestions.
hlapp
commented
5 years ago @nlharris I think the primary goal right now is to get the policy adopted (ratified), with language that is understandable and not misleading. So yes, if you can indicate approval that'd be great. We can (and in the past have, see Travel Fellowship) always tweak language later without having to trigger another membership vote, so long as we are not substantively changing who can be a member project and how.
Also, the community feedback might prompt other additional edits too, so we can still fold those all in together.
heuermh
commented
4 years ago Note the following link in the FAQ
does not actually include the issue template, because the template only exists on this branch. The template can be found at
hlapp
commented
4 years ago Thanks @heuermh! I included the link to the issue template at the top of this PR.
peterjc
commented
4 years ago Old: I don't immediately see that the OBF GSoC activity fits as a member project, but perhaps I'm being narrow minded? It certainly is different to the rest.
Correction: I was misreading the list of references at the end of the document as the list of grandfathered projects.
The policy now consists of two documents, the policy itself, and an FAQ. The policy intentionally leaves out many details on implementation, and instead focuses on the overall framework, and the requirements to be met by a chosen implementation. The FAQ gives, where useful, more details on implementation. The motivation of this division is the expectation that policy changes (affecting substance) should be exceedingly rare, whereas implementation can be expected to need tweaking based on what works best to achieve the policy's requirements.
The two documents can be viewed in their latest drafts here:
Approval
Original (and later amended) description: This PR brings in line the initial draft from @pjotrp with subsequent revisions by @hlapp, and the latest revisions from @yochannah. Also brings in the FAQ that @yochannah started.
Comments welcome. There will likely be further revisions before this is ready be put to a vote, but this seems like a good point in time to start pulling it together into a pull request.