[triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Zak Greant]

Shalom Job^w^w^wDavid, Greetings All,

On Oct 11, 2007, at 10:03PDT (CA), David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Oct 10 2007, Russ Nelson <nelson-AT-crynwr.com> wrote:
>> David Abrahams writes:
>>> Russ Nelson wrote:
>>>> There was a period of time after switching to the new site when
>>>> there were two different approval processes available on the
>>>> website.  This is the correct one: http://opensource.org/approval
>>>> and it includes directions to send a portion of the approval  
>>>> request
>>>> to license-discuss.
>>
>>> You mean there are other portions than what's described there?  What
>>> are the other portions and where are they described?
>>
>> I'm repeatedly totally amazed when computer scientists can't execute
>> an algorithm.  Step #1 first, followed by the next step, and the
>> next and the next.
>
> Russ, I haven't tried to execute any algorithms yet; I'm just trying
> to understand what went wrong in the first place, and to resolve
> apparent inconsistencies between what you wrote in your email and the
> page of instructions you pointed me at.  Your message indicated that
> http://opensource.org/approval discusses sending "a portion" of the
> approval request to license-discuss, which leaves open the clear
> implication that there are other portions of the approval request that
> need to be submitted differently.  That's a bit surprising because the
> directions you cite don't seem to mention any other portions or other
> submission routes.  The fact that you're ignoring the content of my
> questions and responding with your amazement that I'm unable to follow
> a step-by-step procedure only leaves me more puzzled.

Nothing to ticket (as I am sure that the license review process will  
be retooled and we already know that it isn't working as currently  
stands.)

>> Notice the logical flaw in that sentence?  "repeatedly amazed"?
>> Yes, you screwed up by not following instructions.  However since I
>> have adequate evidence at this point that the instructions CANNOT be
>> followed, it is my bad that the instructions exist in the form they
>> do.  My apologies.
>
> OK, thanks, I think.

Nothing here.

>> Basically, we need to change something because at least half the
>> license approval submissions are technically rejectable because they
>> didn't follow the instructions.  I mean, Jon Rosenburg from Microsoft
>> even asked me "Hey, are we doing this right, because we don't want  
>> egg
>> on our faces" <------- not a direct quote but that's surely what he
>> meant.
>>
>> So, we don't know what needs to be different, but something needs to
>> be different.
>
> You could start by removing the statement at
> www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html that indicates the
> process is started by posting to license-approval at opensource.org.

Nothing to ticket (as I am sure that the license review process will  
be retooled and we already know that it isn't working as currently  
stands.)

>> It's not your fault for doing something wrong when most
>> people do it wrongly.  It's just not.
>
> Thanks, but all I did so far was ask my (very careful) lawyer to
> follow the OSI's directions.

Nothing to ticket.

>>>> Basically, yes, I saw the approval request, but because the
>>>> public parts were never sent to license-discuss, I completely
>>>> forgot about it.
>>>
>>> I get the impression from what you've written here that
>>> license-approval was supposed to be for non-public information
>>> relating to approval requests (what would that be?) and all the
>>> public information is supposed to have been sent to
>>> license-discuss, but AFAICT there's nothing on OSI's website that
>>> makes it clear.
>>
>> Oh dear.  It's happening again.  I sent you the URL
>> (http://opensource.org/approval), I expected you to read and
>> comprehend it, and you failed.
>
> How did I fail?  I read the whole thing, and as far as I can tell I
> followed it by posting Devin's original request to
> license-discuss at opensource.org.  If you interpret people's questions
> about apparently implied information in your statements (above, about
> the public parts of the request) as a failure to follow directions,
> it's no surprise people wonder if they're doing it right.

Nothing to ticket.

>> If people repeatedly fail to comprehend something, it is the fault of
>> the author, not the reader.
>>
>> But I don't know what to do differently.  The instructions seem  
>> pretty
>> clearly written.
>
> I suggest you remove the reference to the license-approval list, and
> answer peoples' questions when they ask for clarification about your
> statements.

Nothing to ticket.

>> Danese suggests that better software tools would help.
>
> I don't think computer technology can fix this problem.

Agreed! Nothing to ticket here.

>
>>> One set of self-consistent instructions and a *single* submission
>>> address would be a good start.
>>
>> http://opensource.org/approval
>>
>> I tried having a single submission address earlier, and that didn't
>> work.  Submissions got lost because they only went to me.  As it is,
>> any emails sent to license-approval which don't have a "For Approval"
>> in their subject are summarily discarded.  There's  
>> WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY
>> too much spam coming to that address.
>
> Well, clearly our original submission did have "For Approval:" in the
> subject, but somehow it still got lost.

Nothing to ticket.

>
>>> You might also consider taking a cue from Boost's library approval
>>> process, which seems to work pretty well.  We have a couple people
>>> ("review wizards") who maintain a queue of incoming requests and
>>> schedule dates for open review of each submission, with a "review
>>> manager" appointed for each review.
>>
>> What software tools do they use?
>
> We don't use anything fancy.  Requests get sent to the boost-devel
> mailing list; the review wizards read it and (fairly) promptly deal
> with all the requests that come in by assigning review managers and
> dates.  For us, it's been a simple matter of clarifying directions and
> establishing a straightforward procedure where no one person is solely
> responsible at any point after the request is made.

Nothing to ticket here.

Cheers!
--zak