<html><body><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="msg-quote"><div class="_stretch"><span class="body-text-content">We are still waiting. In a couple months it will be two years since NASA first submitted NOSA 2.0 for certification. How can we help facilitate the process? At this point we are willing to about anything, including collectively getting onto our knees and begging, if that would help.</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>The outstanding license submissions updates are a really useful reminder, but submissions like NOSA repeatedly fail to progress with only informal on-inquiry status updates. I think this group needs to establish (or update/enforce if one exists) a social contract so license submitters have some expectation of activity or response that is respectful of the process, the reviewers, and the submitter.</span></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>A couple years ago at the OSI summit in DC, I think it was Patrick that announced proposals could be submitted to OSI to fund infrastructure projects. Perhaps this should be utilized, to ensure license review infrastructure actually gets set up. I'd be happy to champion a write-up -- progress really needs to be more consistent.<br></span></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>Looking at the Fall 2015 face-to-face meeting minutes, there was an unassigned action to follow up with some offer from GitHub. No update in the December meeting. What was the nature of GitHub's offer? Is progress being made?<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>Cheers!<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span>Sean<br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div><div><span><br data-mce-bogus="1"></span></div></div></body></html>