<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-03-15 3:16 p.m., Bruce Perens
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOufVbSj17eSLiRaZV09V-1kf4qwDaUTFLDPM5cJ7=R=ww@mail.gmail.com">McCoy,
you aren't really talking about the decision process at all. This
list is advisory. The OSI board votes, and we receive no tally
naming directors and their votes yay or nay, nor their rationale
for voting as they did. This makes it difficult for us to
determine how we should vote for OSI directors, since we have no
idea how they actually vote in office, or whether they actually
read license-review at all. Some seem to, but they almost all lurk
100% of the time and we have no idea how they actually feel.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The OSI board is under no compulsion to listen to me or
anyone else who doesn't have a vote on the board.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I am not on the OSI Board any longer, but I think I can add a
little color to this. Simply put in my 6 years on the Board my
recollection is that virtually all of the licensing-related votes
were unanimous[1]. There is no requirement in the Bylaws that the
votes be so, but I do think there is a sense that if there is a
major split within the Board that perhaps the license needs
additional analysis. An example of that was the resolution clearly
stating a logjam on the NOSA 2.0[2]. <br>
</p>
<p>The only one where two directors abstained (to the best of my
recollection) was the UPL[3], which was somewhat controversial at
the time. And I think the votes are actually relatively well
documented as you can see from the snippets below. <br>
</p>
<p>My personal opinion and recollection is that there isn't any
conscious intention to hide vote choices. Perhaps the minute
taking could be improved, but I actually think it's pretty clear
who voted and how.</p>
<p>I would also point out that not everyone on the OSI Board is a
licensing expert. There are a variety of motivations to want to
volunteer your time to the OSI Board. For example, while I
consider myself of middling competence on legal issues, my main
contribution was to help raise the level of corporate sponsorship.
<br>
</p>
<p>I do think that it was helpful to have lawyers on the board, and
I certainly learned a lot from folks like Richard Fontana and Luis
Villa when I was there.<br>
</p>
<p>[1] From <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/minutes2017FallF2F">https://opensource.org/minutes2017FallF2F</a><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Motion (Richard):</strong> Approve W3C Software and
Document License (2015)<strong><br>
Second (Deb).<br>
Discussion:<br>
Vote:</strong> 10 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain; 1 Not Present [I was
the one outside of the room at the time of the vote, which is
noted elsewhere in the minutes]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>[2] From <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/minutes2017FallF2F">https://opensource.org/minutes2017FallF2F</a>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Motion (Richard):</strong> Adopt the following
resolution: <em>Resolved,</em> That, in view of the length,
complexity, and ambiguities in the submitted drafts of the NASA
Open Source Agreement version 2.0, it is the opinion of the OSI
that the conformance of NOSA 2.0 to the OSD cannot be assured.
OSI thus can neither approve nor reject the license, and NASA is
invited to submit a new draft of NOSA for consideration by the
OSI.<strong><br>
Second (Carol):<br>
Discussion:<br>
Vote:</strong> 11 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>[3] From <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/minutes20150204">https://opensource.org/minutes20150204</a><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Motion (Simon):</strong> Approve the Universal
Permissive License (UPL) license subject to the clarification of
the language discussed.<br>
<strong>Second (Bruno).</strong><br>
<strong>Discussion:</strong> Had several discussions with Oracle
representatives and community. Board agreed the UPL is OSD
compliant, however concerned about further changes. Oracle
intends to release software soon and wants us to approve, but
prefers not to publish anything until approved by the OSI as the
recognize the authority of this body and does not want release a
license that is not OSI approved. Initially the Board was
waiting for JPC (sic) review, but that has been undertaken with
agreeable results. Some Board members raised concerns over the
use of the phrase, "Provided that..." It was suggested that
those Board members with concerns work with the applicant to
modify the license to address those concerns. If they can be met
as described, the Board would approve the UPL.<br>
<strong>Vote: </strong>7 Yes; 0 No; 2 Abstain (Richard, Zack)</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="https://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>