Bruce Perens rejected from license-proliferation committee.

[Ben Tilly]

On 8/22/05, Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>  > > http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
>  >
>  > This seems to miss the point.
> 
> You didn't read it, did you?

Reading it does not indicate agreement.

However you seem to agree with it.  I'll use that in a second.

>  > The OSI is not the law.
> 
> No, but in a sense we are.

I'll make use of that as well.

>  > Several years ago I agitated strongly about the lack of any semblance
>  > of democracy or transparency in the OSI.
> 
> You still didn't read it, did you?  How we do things is immaterial.
> What we do is the only thing that matters.  When you eat in a
> restaurant, you don't get to vote for the cook.  You voted when you
> walked into the restaurant.  People selected OSI because we matter.

Since you're using this essay as a club to tell people to shut up,
I'll use it as a cudgel on you in turn.

The coin that OSI deals in is the perception of legitimacy.  A long
time ago OSI appointed itself the maintainer of the open source
definition.  People who wanted their license approved as an open
source license could ask OSI to determine how well they fit the
definition, and those who fit the definition gained some legitimacy in
the eyes of some onlookers and participants.  The criteria for this
were open and fairly reasonable.

Now OSI has an issue.  Many think that there are too many approved
licenses, and this leads to confusion.  Plus it makes "OSI-approved"
not have the weight it once did.  Therefore people want to make some
licenses more legitimate than others.  As that essay might put it,
people are trying to alter the law to plunder legitimacy from some
licenses so that other licenses can be given more legitimacy.  And
that essay predicts that this will cause everyone to want to influence
this decision, and will want to be represented.

Now you can question which of us understands that essay better.  I'll
have more to say on that shortly.

>  > Personally I think the OSI should drop any claims about representing
>  > the community,
> 
> We represent everyone who uses the term "Open Source", which is, well,
> just about everybody.  They walked into our restaurant.

You represent everyone who uses the term "Open Source" in the same way
that NOW represents all US women.  Which is to say that you don't, but
like to claim you do for rhetorical effect.

You doubt me?  I'd wager that most people who use the term "Open
Source" haven't even HEARD of the OSI!  Further we've heard from many
in this thread who've stated quite clearly that they don't feel
represented by the OSI.

>  > (Full disclosure: I also applied to be on the license-proliferation
>  > committee.
> 
> You and that army.  When Martin Fink and I sat down in February to
> discuss the structure of the solution, he and I were firm in the
> belief that the committee should be strictly limited in membership.  I
> haven't changed my mind in that regard.  If Martin has, I might be led
> to change mine.  Maybe you should ask him?

Now back to discussing that essay.

That essay didn't do a lot of talking about how people SHOULD react
depending on what the government does.  Instead it talked about how
people DO react depending on what the government does.  To the extent
that its theories of human behaviour are accurate, the fact that so
many attempted to get on the committee, and the fact that so many have
complained about feeling underrepresented are evidence, according to
that essay, that government is engaged in plunder.  (Specifically that
it is plundering the legitimacy of many licenses in favour of just a
few licenses.)

Therefore my interpretation would have allowed you to predict people's
responses.  Your interpretation has lead to your being puzzled that
people care so much when you think that they shouldn't.

If you select my interpretation and try to hold to the moral
prescriptions of that essay, then you have to ask whether this
committee is a good idea.  There may be food for thought there.  (Note
that I am not arguing that this committee should be disbanded - I hold
to my interpretation but do not agree that, a priori, government
plunder is necessarily the wrong thing to do.)

>  > to understand that most people who care seriously about OSI
>  > pronouncements don't really understand how the open source world
>  > really works in practice, or are just free software wonks like me.
> 
> So ... who voted for RMS or Eben?  You're simply confused, Ian.  The
> free software world is a meritocracy, not a democracy.  It doesn't
> mean, however, that everyone with merit gets to serve.  Certainly you
> and Bruce have merit.  What it means is that the people who serve have
> merit.  Google for Rishab, or Joi.  We have a damn fine board here,
> and I'm proud to serve with them.

Russ.  The essay that you've been hitting everyone over the head with
predicts quite clearly the kinds of complaints that you're getting. 
Perhaps a re-reading will clarify why this happens.

Cheers,
Ben