[License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]
speterso at redhat.com
Mon May 20 15:44:42 UTC 2019
When considering process and decision-making rules, please recognize that
the goal ought not be maximum precision of rules.
The precision of rules needs to be balanced against the reality that
understanding is incomplete -- both incomplete understanding of the direct
subject matter and, especially, of future contexts.
Hard-edged rules are more susceptible of being gamed than rules that leave
more allowance for judgment. Highly precise, well-intended rules may
provide the satisfaction of clearer application, but are also are better
targets for gaming, with results at odds with what was intended. I have
seen this manifest in the realm of standards development. In development of
industry standards, competitors jointly make decisions that can have
significant commercial impact. Rules play important roles in managing the
risks inherent such cooperation among competing entities. It has been
challenging to strike that balance between precision of rules and
understanding of their implications.
This consideration looms in my mind as I see consideration of:
- adding language to make aspects of the OSD more "clear";
- stronger use of voting to make decisions.
Recognize that rules are made on imperfect knowledge
Please let the rules be no more perfect than the knowledge underlying them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss