[License-review] For Approval: Rewrite of License Zero Reciprocal Public License

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-11-13 10:11, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:10:31PM -0800, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> > For what it's worth, my confusion here traces back to
> > https://opensource.org/approval once more:
> >
> >   What Will Happen
> >
> >   1. The License Review community will discuss on the
> >      mailing list for at least 30 days.  The submitter
> >      should participate in this discussion by replying to
> >      any questions asked or claims made about the license.
> >
> >   2. The License Review Chair will summarize and present
> >      recommendations to OSI Board (and copy the list).
> >
> >   3. The OSI Board will make the final decision, or requests
> >      for additional information, at the next monthly
> >      meeting.
> >
> >   4. The License Review Chair will report back to the List.
> >
> >   5. If Approved, the OSI Website will be updated as
> >      appropriate.
> >
> > The website names Luis License Review Chair, but I
> > understand he no longer holds the post.  I gathered that
> > Richard does, somewhere along the way.  I can't recall
> > offhand how.  And I took his recent e-mail laying out
> > questions for the board as preparation for the report
> > mentioned above.
>
> Ah, sorry, that is not exactly what that email was for, not
> specifically. Rather I was trying to facilitate step 1, as step 2
> seemed premature. Or maybe just trying to organize my own thoughts, as
> a participant in this mailing list.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear. I didn't think your message
_was_ the step 2 report. But I thought it was floating a
structure that report might eventually take.

For what it's worth, it helped to organize my thoughts, too.

> > I so wish that my first e-mail to license-discuss had been a
> > request for an overview of the process, soup to nuts.
> > Instead, I did what looked for all the world like my
> > homework, and followed its instructions.  I can't help
> > feeling that's hurt more than helped me.
> >
> > I have no desire to lay blame anywhere, on anyone.  But
> > someone should please update /approval, before it takes
> > another victim.  If only to replace it with instructions to
> > inquire on this list.
>
> I'm not really sure what major discrepancy you are seeing between what
> /approval says and what you've been experiencing. It does seem to me
> that you may have assumed the review process (up until the actual OSI
> board vote, if one is held) is more formal than, in practice, it is.

That's fair. If I kvetch, I should kvetch constructively.

Trying to sum it up just as succinctly as I can:

1. I would update /approval to make explicit that both the
   list and the board will apply their own judgment and
   policy preferences, atop their readings of the
   Definition, in deciding whether to approve a license. And
   I would spell out, as a gloss, that the board may very
   well choose _not_ to approve even non-redundant
   submissions that conform to the Definition.

2. I would update /approval to clarify that the process will
   not proceed to a structured board decision or feedback
   until license-review reaches consensus of all mailing
   list participants. (I am paraphrasing what I recall from
   Simon's note here.) I would also note who will make the
   call that consensus has been reached. Perhaps the License
   Review Chair.

3. If the process up to current step 2 aims to be informal,
   I would mention that on /approval, as well.

I don't like the differences I think these updates would
reflect. But there's nothing I value like an outside,
new-eyes read of writing I'm familiar with.

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933