COI: non-PLC/Conservancy people and software development contract drafting

[Ian Lynagh]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 10:15:50AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote at 20:57 (EST) on Sunday:
> 
> > Then if I understand correctly, a non-PLC person may help draft a
> > proposal and then apply for the contract, but a PLC person cannot.
> >
> > If so, that seems odd to me.
> 
> Why?  It makes sense to me because the PLC person is a decision maker
> for the project, the non-PLC is not.  Decision makers have to be held to
> a higher standard.

Well, it means that if there is a project that you want to see happen,
and that you would be the obvious person to (be paid to) implement it,
then you are disadvantaged by being a PLC person. You'd have to find
someone else willing to spend the time on writing a proposal for the
project - and that other person may not be able to write the proposal as
easily/quickly as you.

Although I guess one could always step down the day before?
(And I guess there's also theoretically nothing to stop them being
reappointed the day after, although such rule side-stepping would
presumably be frowned upon!)


I think this is the only rule where being on the PLC actually makes a
difference. For example, when a COI means you cannot vote on an issue,
you basically act as if you were not on the PLC.

> > If you think it's fine as-is then that's fine.
> 
> Well, if you do think there's something wrong with the way it's written,
> I want to make sure I've fully understood your concern.

I think that it says what you intended it to say.

> This policy
> will apply to all projects, so we want to be sure everyone on the PLCs
> are comfortable with the policy.

I don't object to it - especially if I am a lone voice, and especially
if I am right that one could just step down.


Thanks
Ian

_______________________________________________
policies-discuss mailing list
policies-discuss at sfconservancy.org
http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/policies-discuss