SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Jan 19 23:42:08 UTC 2007
Michael Tiemann 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.
I don't understand why the Board feels this is necessary. This is a
discussion list, and I think people's arguments have naturally developed
that way. This level of formality has never been requested before (to
my knowledge), and seems a bit like instruction creep. I certainly
oppose the idea of creating separate lists and IRC channels.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the License-discuss