SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Andrew,

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  
la:

SocialText: FOR - Draft 1
SocialText: AGAINST - Draft 2
etc.

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  
things rolling.

Any takers?

-- Ernie P.