[License-review] moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]

[Kyle Mitchell]

Allison,

Thanks again for taking time.  And for offering clarity.

There was lively debate on L0-R's OSD conformance, but most
controversy focused on broader policy concerns.  I read
repeatedly that policy would prevail: that OSI would not
approve, even if the license were OSD-conformant, even if it
had approved licenses with comparable features before.  By
sheer endurance---many characters were typed---and some
perseverance---the list went down for a spell---the group
did manage two waves of focused comment directly on OSD.  But
overall, policy stalked conformance and vice-versa, making
each conversation much harder to have.

If the board waits for list consensus on both policy and
conformance before taking up a license itself, then reviews
just conformance, the board has delegated policy to this
list. OSD conformance for novel, non-proliferating licenses
won't be settled, practically, since the board does that,
and the board won't reach past policy objections.

If that's the case, I understand why requests for OSI
statements or other clarifications of policy criteria don't
compute.  Those statements would have to come from the
board, but the board doesn't _do_ policy.  The only
exception is nonproliferation.

If that's the case, conversely, personal policy statements
like Bruce's make perfect sense.  Trouble is, they needn't
be compatible, one to another.  Any hard-line position
against approving new licenses generally won't be, by
definition.  That turns "consensus" into "attrition".
Anyone capable of staying civil and willing to hold a
personal line indefinitely can run any submission out of
steam, landing it in unresolved license-review purgatory.

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