[License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

[Gil Yehuda]

Tobie,
I don't understand the point that you are trying to make in your recent
posts (about how the OSI election works and how the "winner takes" model is
not representative of voter sentiment). Let me explain where my confusion
about your message is centered:

Coraline has said many times that she seeks to change the OSD (specifically
the part related to "fields of endeavor"). She also requested that OSI change
the manner in which changes are made to the OSD (asking the OSI to create "a
public, representative, and diverse working group to establish a mechanism
for reviewing and potentially revising the OSD").

Changing the change-process clearly helps achieve her goal of changing the
OSD because the current process and voting outcomes don't look as
promising. Getting different people to decide these things (via
appointment, not vote) should yield different results. I get the
motivation, although I'm not convinced at its merit, I'm not confused about
the suggestion.

Where I'm unclear: based on your discussion of voter-sentiment and
percentage-adding I'm trying to understand if you suggest that the
decisions of such a working group should not employ a majority-rule
process, as via that process, a minority view would not succeed at making
the decision. In other words, are you suggesting a method in which multiple
versions of a minority position can be added together in a manner that
overrules a majority position? I'm asking because I really want to
understand what processes you are recommending OSI use that you believe
would result in the outcomes you are looking for.

Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement



On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:32 AM Tobie Langel <tobie at unlockopen.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:08 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
>> From which, I would conclude, the winners got substantial majorities of
>> the voters, and no one else did, even if we combine candidates based on
>> platforms. So they really deserve a seat at the table; everyone else,
>> probably not.
>>
>
> If OSI is to be the custodian of open source, it needs to be
> representative of the open source community at large. Not based on a winner
> takes model, which is, by definition, not representative.
>
> --tobie
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200318/bd6aad01/attachment.html>