SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
tiemann at redhat.com
Sat Jan 20 19:01:54 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 18:42 -0500, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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.
Usually the discussions have led to a fairly strong consensus, making
the approval process quite straightforward. As I said, if nobody wants
to collect all the bits and try to present them coherently, we'll work
with what we have, but there's already an effort to do that, which I
believe will lead to a better result (both a better decision and a
better understanding as to why the decision was reached).
> 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.
Yes--me too. We can organize the thoughts without excluding people from
More information about the License-discuss