<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 5/24/19 9:15 PM, Bruce Perens via License-review wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs1NzN0CoOhR0bdaXkEZSd1ojnMDyWXkZKSgZJPpibNsA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">The complaint which spurred this action was
ad-hominem in nature, and this continues to be the case. Let's
please not try to hide that it's directed squarely at me, except
that we have just for the first time had Nigel complain that
Richard Fontana also dominated the mailing list in 2012. Let's
also be clear what the action is: I, and others, have today been
ejected from the license committee.</div>
</blockquote>
Bruce - This is simply not true. I don't know what complaint you are
referring to, nothing like that came up in the Board conversations
around the email I sent. <br>
<br>
No one is being ejected from anything; in fact the opposite is true.
The OSI highly values the opinions of everyone who has an interest.
However the Board perceived, as have many others, that the
license-review list hasn't done a good job lately of being a
welcoming place for discussion and capturing the diversity of views
that exist. That's what we're trying to improve, making the lists
more valuable, not less.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs1NzN0CoOhR0bdaXkEZSd1ojnMDyWXkZKSgZJPpibNsA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I believe the main offense I've committed is being a
vigorously participating authority on the matter of the OSD
and Open Source licensing. OSI has been eager to make use of
this authority where it is convenient to them, and currently
has me representing their organization to the European Union
government and global industry.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>OSI is increasingly being pressured to adopt licenses with
<i>a common anti-user theme. </i>As an individual, I believe
it's important to push back against such licenses, and that
they should be disapproved on the basis of the OSD and
Software Freedom. As an investor in a significant number of
Open Source companies, both individually and on behalf of my
employer, I also have a legitimate interest to represent in
keeping the terms of Open Source close to those which led to
its success and are essential for its continued success.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I personally value what you say on the lists. I find it insightful,
knowledgeable, and helpful. However, what I sometimes find
problematic is your tone and aggressiveness. That makes it more
challenging to read your emails for the value they offer.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs1NzN0CoOhR0bdaXkEZSd1ojnMDyWXkZKSgZJPpibNsA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Discussion of the last license reviewed easily topped an
arbitrary number which, I am told, repels people from
participation. There naturally will be need for further
discussion when the license submitter is incomplete in their
responses, ignores issues, or presents them in the light most
favorable to their client, which are all things we can expect.
Thus, I reject such arbitrary counts.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again you are assuming something that isn't true; in the Board
discussions about this communication no one ever said that there
should be a limit on the number of emails and I expect no one ever
will (or at least I would object to it). I know in an earlier email
you mentioned this concept also, although I don't know where it came
from. I assume it was someone sharing with you the simple
observation that people tend to ignore long threads, as something to
keep in mind when participating.<br>
<br>
This paragraph is also what I mean by tone and aggressiveness. I
read this paragraph as accusing Van ("the last license reviewed") of
being "incomplete in their responses, ignores issues, or presents
them in the light most favorable to their client." I believe Van has
been a paragon of responsiveness, openness and honesty in his
efforts to respond to all questions raised. He has responded
quickly, in detail and thoroughly. I believe your accusations
against him are unwarranted and unfair. This is the kind of
statement that I don't think anyone should be making; aside from it
being incorrect it also reduces others' desire to participate. When
I see someone wrongfully attacked, or even correctly attacked but
done in an aggressive way, I am less likely to participate myself.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs1NzN0CoOhR0bdaXkEZSd1ojnMDyWXkZKSgZJPpibNsA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A board member, perhaps acting as an interim moderator,
recently dinged me for using the word "absurd". This is the
only moderation communication I have received this year. I
have been an eager participant in implementing codes of
conduct on Open Source projects, and am not clear just what
part of the code <i>that </i>one falls under. Separately
from codes, collegiality obviously has value, and should be
maintained, but I would not have though that one
non-collegial.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You didn't give the full context. In response to an email from Van
defending data portability as an open source value, you said "I am
unable to run the program as I <i>wish</i> unless - which can be
followed by any number of absurd requirements on top of the one you
should have a right to: simply being able to run the program."<br>
<br>
I agree with the board member who wrote to you that this is a tone
and style of engagement that is inappropriate. You called Van's
argument absurd when it is far from it. As Van has argued, it is
quite close to the policies underlying anti-Tivoization. Your
hyperbole was unnecessary and counterproductive and doesn't belong
on a collegial list. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs1NzN0CoOhR0bdaXkEZSd1ojnMDyWXkZKSgZJPpibNsA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am having trouble valuing the complaints of the
so-far-non-participants when their main distinguishing
characteristic is that they <i>don't</i> participate. If OSI
is changing the policy, OSI will need to show that people with
diverse viewpoints actually participate to a greater extent
than they did before - not that discussion is globally
reduced.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That is our goal, to increase the diversity of viewpoints and
increase participation. I hope that everyone shares that goal and
will help us work towards it.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOs1NzN0CoOhR0bdaXkEZSd1ojnMDyWXkZKSgZJPpibNsA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:51
AM Pamela Chestek <<a
href="mailto:pamela.chestek@opensource.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pamela.chestek@opensource.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <u>Summary</u><br>
The directors of the board of the Open Source Initiative
recognize the process for discussion and review of new
licenses proposed for approval by the organization can use
improvement and would benefit from evolution. In particular,
it does not appear as though all points of view on open
source licensing are represented in the discussion here. To
address this situation we have created a Board Committee for
license approval to evaluate responses on-list, appointed
more moderators, and will devise a new moderation strategy.<br>
<br>
<u>Proposal</u><br>
We anticipate that the effort to improve the quality of
discussion on the license lists will be an iterative
process. This email describes our first step, which is to
approach the community and elicit feedback on this approach.
We anticipate further steps including a review of tools, but
we’re not yet at that stage.<br>
<br>
<u>Channels</u><br>
License review vs. License discuss lists<br>
<br>
<a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
is the email address for submitting a license for which you
seek OSI approval following the process at <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://opensource.org/approval" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/approval</a>.
The list is open to the public, so anyone can give their
opinion about a license. The OSI License Committee considers
the viewpoints expressed on the license-review list in
making its license approval recommendation to the OSI Board.
Since the purpose of the list is to inform the Committee and
the Board, discussion of substantive issues off-list is not
recommended. If a license submitter elects to respond to a
substantive question submitted to them off-list, the
submitter is encouraged to copy the license-review list also
on their response after redacting the identity of the person
sending the communication. <br>
<br>
<a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
is for general questions about open source licenses and for
licenses in early stage development. The list is open to the
public and anyone can give feedback. A moderator may decide
that a license submitted to license-review isn’t
sufficiently developed and will move it to license-discuss
for additional work. We recommend that you carry out your
license development process on a publicly viewable venue
(preferably one where collaboration is also possible) and
regularly seek views on license-discuss. Note that agreement
on license-discuss does not guarantee agreement on
license-review, as the audiences differ.<br>
<br>
<u>Moderation</u><br>
The board recognizes that the license-review mailing list
would benefit from further, more concerted moderation, both
to ensure appropriate conversation and to maintain the pace
of discussions. This more concerted process will evolve in
the following steps:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>We will develop rules to encourage wider
participation. We perceive that some are discouraged
from participating because of offensive tone, frequency,
or repetitiveness of messages. We will develop
moderation standards to address these hurdles.</li>
<li>A moderator will also advance the conversation, by
following up with the license steward on unanswered
questions and ensuring that all topics of interest have
been fully fleshed out.</li>
<li>We will assure observance of the Code of Conduct for
the mailing lists, available at: <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://opensource.org/codeofconduct/licensing"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/codeofconduct/licensing</a>.</li>
</ul>
<br>
<u>Changes to the Website</u><br>
We have also made a minor change to the language describing
the license review process on <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://opensource.org/approval" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/approval</a>.
The page formerly said “Approve, if (a) there is sufficient
consensus emerging from community discussion that approval
is justified, and (b) the OSI determines that the license
conforms to the Open Source Definition and guarantees
software freedom." The page now says “Approve if, after
taking into consideration community discussion, the OSI
determines that the license conforms to the Open Source
Definition and guarantees software freedom.”<br>
<br>
We have also clarified the timing of the review decision.<br>
<br>
<u>License Review Committee</u><br>
The License Review Committee is an OSI Board committee made
up of the following board members, as of May 2019:<br>
<br>
Pamela Chestek, chair, <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:pamela.chestek@opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pamela.chestek@opensource.org</a><br>
Elana Hashman, <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:elana.hashman@opensource.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">elana.hashman@opensource.org</a><br>
Chris Lamb, <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:chris.lamb@opensource.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">chris.lamb@opensource.org</a><br>
Simon Phipps, <a
class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:webmink@opensource.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">webmink@opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
The License Review Committee will summarize and report the
license-review discussions to the Board for the Board’s
approval or disapproval of a proposed license. Members of
the Committee also serve as moderators for the two mailing
lists.<br>
<br>
<u>What We’re Asking</u><br>
Let us know what you think of these changes. <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-signature" cols="72">--
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Bruce Perens - Partner, <a
href="http://OSS.Capital" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">OSS.Capital</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>