Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins

[Bill Nottingham]

Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert at googlemail.com) said: 
> It could be a great showcase if
>       * it would get the necessary support from all groups within the
>         project

But again we go back to this... *this wasn't how Spins was set up to
operate*!

So, all that this leads to is:

- People annoyed because they expected Spins to work that way, and are
dissapointed that their requests aren't being handled the way they'd like
- People annoyed because they're working with the way Spins was
organized/intended, and are frustrated at being asked to adhere to an idea of
it that wasn't there with resources they don't have.

Obviously, there are two ways out of this:

1) Adjustment of expectations of those working in Spins to match the current
reality
2) Board-decreed adjustment of Spins reality, and top-down directions to other
groups to match that.

Anything else seems pretty pointless.

>       * the board was not blocking tools that are on the wish list of
>         the spin for months.
> 
> I think the fact that Jörg Simon was #1 in the recent board elections is
> a clear message that the community appreciates his (our) work and should
> reconsider their opinion on the Security spin (and spins in general).

Given that he even said "I do not talk about spins" in his election
platform, that's a bit of a stretch... I don't think that just because I got
elected to FESCo that that means everyone should be testing my GnuCash packages.
(Yes, I realize that's at a different scale.)

Bill