SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
prabhaka at apple.com
Fri Jan 19 22:59:25 UTC 2007
On Jan 19, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> Therefore, we'd like to invite those who think we should not
>> approve the SocialText license to work out a common position on
>> *why* we
>> should not approve it, which could inform how SocialText could remedy
>> your concerns. And we'd like to invite those who think we should
>> approve it (or should approve it with some minor change) to work
>> out a
>> common position on why we *should* approve it. If one or both
>> sides are
>> willing to do this, I think that the Board's decision process will
>> appear much more transparent.
> Sounds rational. Suggestions:
> 1. Set up two mailing lists (I can do that if Russ's services are
> not available to that task)
> 2. Schedule 3 IRC meetings for each group (temporally separated) -
> I don't have an IRC server but we can probably use any number of
> public ones
> 3. Set up 3 public read-only, private (for those on the list/IRC
> chats) read-write wiki pages (I can also do that) where two
> separate position papers can be written.
If someone wants to do that, great. However, I don't think we need
to wait for that. Plus, there's some value in the "for" and "against"
crowd (and everyone else) vetting each other's ongoing documents.
I think it would suffice for us to simply have clear subject lines, a
SocialText: FOR - Draft 1
SocialText: AGAINST - Draft 2
That is, as long as people kept on-topic within a thread, we could do
the bulk of the work on this list; if necessary, the primary writers
could setup their own ad-hoc chats wherever they liked.
Thus, all we need is for one person on each side to kick-off the
thread with the appropriate Subject, and people can self-select from
there. It doesn't have to be a great post, just a strawman to get
-- Ernie P.
More information about the License-discuss