newsforge story

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

These proposals sound lke a great idea!
Rod


Rod Dixon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sambc at nights.force9.co.uk [mailto:sambc at nights.force9.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 5:30 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: osi at opensource.org
> Subject: RE: newsforge story
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to pick up on a couple of points to 
> this list, and to the OSI:
> 
> "Board member Russ Nelson says that people who 
> are complaining should put forth more effort to 
> help the board by fulfilling the purpose of the 
> license-discuss list: to discuss the merits of 
> submissions and offer suggestions to the 
> board. "I submitted three licenses on 8/31 for 
> review to the license-discuss mailing list. Has 
> anybody reviewed them?" "
> 
> I never saw them - wether this is a fault at my 
> end or yours remains to be seen. However, as it 
> seems that others have looked in the archive and 
> not found such emails I am puzzled. However, I 
> must also reiterate by quoting my earlier 
> suggestion (not credited to me in the article):
> 
> "Members briefly bandied about a suggestion to 
> form volunteer focus groups for each pending 
> license; but there was no official public 
> response from the OSI to the license-discuss 
> list, and it seemed that was what the list was 
> waiting for."
> 
> I am still happy to do such things, and I am sure 
> others are. A nice three tiered structure, with 
> an hourglass shape (or diamond depending on how 
> you drraw the diagram):
> 
> 1) License-Discuss mailing list. Casual public 
> discussion of pros and cons of licenses, and 
> public opinion of their fitting the OSD
> 
> 2) A set of smaller focus groups, handling one 
> license at a time, and reviewing license-discuss 
> feedback. Possibly with seperate mailing lists, 
> and only 3-5 members. focus1 thru 
> focus3 at opensource.org, for example. This would 
> also allow the board and focus groups to suggest 
> a small number of licenses for license-discuss to 
> look at at one time.
> 
> 3) The board, taking the reports of the focus 
> groups. The focus groups will already have 
> digested the views aired on license-discuss.
> 
> Now I am happy to do work implementing this and 
> working with it once it is implemented. Can we 
> have a reply from the board as to this 
> possibility?
> 
> Finally, I would like to respond to the 
> correspondace quoted in the article:
> 
> "So okay, my feeling is to write these folks off 
> as whingers. My opinion is subject to change, but 
> first I want to see some discussion about the 
> submitted licenses." - Russ Nelson
> 
> Could this be clarified who it is applied to? No 
> names need be mentioned, but what sort of 
> proportion of the license-discuss list are we 
> talking? A few real whingers? The whole list? 
> Anyone who says anything negative? I would be 
> itnerested to know, especially to figure out if 
> it is likely that I am included, making 
> contructive criticism as I have.
> 
> 
> Sam Barnett-Cormack
> 
> >For those that haven't seen, NewsForge is carrying a none-to-flattering
> >story of the discussion on this list these past couple of weeks:
> >http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=3D01/09/04/1615251
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3