[License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon May 20 13:41:43 UTC 2019
One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in addition to a discussion period.
On 5/20/19, 9:07 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Pamela Chestek" <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:
On 5/19/19 5:23 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Statistically, you may be right, but I'd still like to challenge this.
> It is my belief that the list is merely functioning efficiently. I
> often read review discussions, and if I agree with the
> majority/consensus, I stay silent. It doesn't mean I'm not active.
That may be true of you, but there are some bullies on the lists. That
means that some who disagree may be silent because they don't want to be
bullied. So we can't assume that silence means agreement.
Pamela S. Chestek
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-discuss