For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Russ Nelson]

David Abrahams writes:
 > 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.

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.

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.  It's not your fault for doing something wrong when most
people do it wrongly.  It's just not.

 > 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.

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.  Danese suggests that better software tools would help.

 > 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.

 > 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?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | People have strong opinions
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | about economics even though
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | they've never studied it.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | Curious how that is!