[License-review] exploring tracking tool for license-review

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

It’s GREAT to see progress being made getting some tracking infrastructure in place… awesome Allison!

> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:22:06 -0400
> From: Allison Randal <allison at opensource.org>
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] exploring tracking tool for
> 	license-review
> 
> On 05/11/2016 02:14 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
>> I'm concerned that "DRAFTING" doesn't make it clear that we're waiting
>> on the submitter.  "WAITING ON SUBMITTER" seems wordy, but it is the
>> actual state.  I'm worried that if we just call it "DRAFTING", the
>> submitter won't realize we're waiting for them.

Ditto Josh's concerns on the old and the revised.

> [snip] Some other possibilities instead of DRAFTING:
> 
> REVISING
> NEW VERSION
> EDITING
> APPLYING CHANGES
> NEEDS WORK
> NEEDS EDITS
> NEEDS CHANGES

On the surface, these labels still seem to overlap to me or require documentation instead of being obvious.  I think that will likely be confusing to the reviewers and submitters alike in the long run.  The problem stems from mixing indicators for current state and current action.  It needs to stick with one or the other strictly so that they are more clear, or embrace both more consistently.  I suggest something like this:

OPEN - NEW UNREVIEWED LICENSE
OPEN - REVISED AWAITING REVIEW

PENDING - UNDER DISCUSSION
PENDING - MINOR CHANGES REQUESTED
PENDING - MAJOR CHANGES REQUESTED
PENDING - AWAITING VOTE

CLOSED - INVALID
CLOSED - REJECTED
CLOSED - ACCEPTED
CLOSED - WITHDRAWN

When it’s OPEN, it’s in the legal team’s court waiting on them to review.  When it’s PENDING, the submitter can make changes (returning it to OPEN) or withdraw (CLOSED).  When it’s CLOSED, it’s no longer under consideration.

Ideally feedback is provided on all CLOSED that explains the determination.  INVALID is to weed out anything that does not qualify as a license submission (e.g., not a license, unknown provenance, fake authorship, etc.).  REJECTED and ACCEPTED submissions went to vote and did not or did pass respectively.  WITHDRAWN is self-evident.

> Ultimately it comes down to the legal team lead to decide, the same way
> s/he currently decides when to bring the license to the board to vote.
> But, the decision is largely an attempt to gauge rough consensus, so
> participants on license-review should feel free to openly chat about
> whether the status marked on a particular license in the review process
> is appropriate.

If it can be set up such that the submitter is able to change status (at least to OPEN - REVISED AWAITING REVIEW), the Kanban transitions should operate much more smoothly (and with less burden on the legal team).  Alternatively, we could eliminate the second OPEN status and require all revisions be submitted anew with the former getting WITHDRAWN.

Cheers!
Sean