Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List

[Zak Greant]

Hi Matt, Greetings All,

On 11/26/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> > I'd prefer to treat membership in the editor's group as something like
> > commit access on a free/open software project.
>
> To me, that just means they're regular (and thus reliable) contributors.

Let's put one more 'r' into that mix - responsible. :)

>  How can someone become a regular contributor to process if the process
> list is entirely closed?  A better analogy would be if only the members
> could modify tickets, but anyone could join the list and suggest changes
> to tickets.  I think that would be more appropriate.

I think that I need to finish working up a strawman process - right
now we are discussing something that isn't at all well-defined yet.

> > I'd also prefer it that the editors are nominated by community members
> > and that the nominations are validated by the community at large.
> >
> > If we don't have these controls, it is likely that that the ticket
> > system function more like a forum or mailing list - which is not
> > desirable. The ticket system is meant to be a place where we can
> > easily see the full range of opinions on any issue that we are
> > tracking, rather than a place where people can discuss.
>
> I agree the ticket system shouldn't be the forum.
>
> On the other hand, the OSI editors list is clearly meant for certain
> discussions, such as the contents of an FAQ.  Should someone have to
> post an FAQ suggestion to license-discuss (off-topic) or send to the
> moderator of OSI-editors (inefficient)?

I had thought that it would happen by people asking questions on
whichever list is (or as the case happens, isn't) relevant. An editor
would then pick it up and drop it into the appropriate FAQ.

-- 
Cheers!
--zak