public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List

[Zak Greant]

Hi Larry, Greetings All,

On 11/27/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Zak Greant wrote:
> > It is primarily an administrative, ombuds and service role - rather
> > than making policy, editors focus on helping good and representative
> > policy to be made.
>
> Given this definition of the role, I withdraw my agreement to serve. I do
> not have time to perform an administrative function that OSI cannot fund
> directly by its Board doing necessary fundraising.

I am curious as to what you thought that you were signing up for?

> > In their role as editors, editors do not raise issues or give input on
> > the issues. If an editor has an issue to raise or input to give as an
> > individual, then they may not act as an editor for the relevant issue.
>
> Particularly if an editor does not actually provide input on issues, then
> the experts you have already recruited seem ill-suited for this more limited
> editorial role. I now vote -1 to all of them, considering that we will waste
> their talents in this way. I'd much rather they stay on license-discuss and,
> like John Cowan and me, comment on the issues whenever they can.

Editors can still comment on issues. Depending on how we resolve the
definition of the role, either they will not be able to continue
triaging an issue once they comment on it or they will need to follow
the same processes as anyone else in order to comment.

As for the requirement for expertise, the editors should have a solid
understanding of the issues. Without it, they will not be able to
properly triage issues.

-- 
Cheers!
--zak