[License-review] L0-R WAS: moving to an issue tracker

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-06-19 16:06, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 06/19/2018 04:12 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> L0-R is a great example of where some format other than email would help
> a LOT.  Like, I can't tell you whether I personally approve of the
> license at this point or not, because I've completely lost track of what
> the current text is, and what the lawyers had to say about the meaning
> of certain pieces of language.

FWIW, I tracked my own revisions to the license text in Git
from before first submission.

Whether or not I _should_ be revising also came up in the
discussion.  Given the time spent trying to batch up and
post numbered revisions of both the license text and
submission form, I have to admit that rankled.

In any event, both revision control and discussion make up
the process.  It wouldn't do just to use Git, or just to use
a message board or bug tracker.  And it wouldn't do to use
either, if they didn't archive well.

Good to hear from you, Josh.

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