What will the editors do (was Re: public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List)

[Zak Greant]

Ahoy Chris, Greetings All,

On 11/28/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > My view is that the editors will maintain the canon - the generally
> > accepted knowledge of the OSI community.
>
> Hmm.....  I am not sure there is such a canon.  I have no problem
> suggesting that certain consensus and politically neutral community
> resources should be maintained.  This is hardly the same thing though.

Bah. Just ignore that previous half-witted thought of mine.

I do think that we can keep nice archives of the discussions and other
things that come out of the lists (such as FAQs, opinions on licenses,
etc.)

Official policy should live on the OSI site.

> > I agree that your greatest value is to discuss these issues rather
> > than to catalogue them.
> >
> > However, we still need other experts who can recognize the issues for
> > what they are and deal with them appropriately.
>
> I guess I am confused about what sort of issues you thing need to be dealt with.

The OSI editor role exists to help ensure that public input on OSI
issues is collected, acknowledged, addressed and archived. These are
the issues I'm writing of above.

(See https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/handbook/editor)

> Issues such as:  does the GPL v3 require the ability to change
> licenses to the GPL v3 from other licenses for them to be compatible?
> (I don't believe that is an issue for the OSI.)

Eeek. Not that. That is something to discuss on the lists. The editors
would catalogue the opinions had and consensus reached (if any.)

> Or issues such as:  How do we provide general advice on license
> selection without going too much into the legal issues?  That is more
> of an OSI issue.

Not this either.

-- 
Cheers!
--zak