<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<!-- BlackBerry Work Editable Body Start -->As opposed to the transparent and fair system where one individual held up the vote on a license for three years AFTER consensus had been reached on the list for approval and the former moderator had so recommended
to the board?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I’m not advocating for a voting process but the current system is opaque despite having a public mailing list.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ObDis Speaking only for myself<br>
<br>
</div>
<!-- BlackBerry Work Original Body Start -->
<blockquote>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px;">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:rfontana@redhat.com">rfontana@redhat.com</a>> Yes </span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Monday, May 20, 2019, 10:33 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>license-discuss@lists.opensource.org <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Potential for abuse in certain cases -- suppose a company writes a<br>
controversial license and wants it to get OSI-approved, or wants to<br>
see a third-party-submitted license rejected, and tries to manipulate<br>
the process by encouraging employees to sign up for individual<br>
memberships.<br>
<br>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:48 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela@chesteklegal.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 5/20/19 9:41 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<br>
> > One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in addition to a discussion period.<br>
> Interesting thought.<br>
><br>
> Pam<br>
><br>
> Pamela S. Chestek<br>
> Chestek Legal<br>
> PO Box 2492<br>
> Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
> +1 919-800-8033<br>
> pamela@chesteklegal.com<br>
> <a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_BLANK">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_BLANK">
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Richard Fontana<br>
Senior Commercial Counsel<br>
Red Hat, Inc.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_BLANK">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></blockquote>
<!-- BlackBerry Work Original Body End --><!-- BlackBerry Work Editable Body End -->
</body>
</html>