<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">FWIW, the GPLv3 revision process used stet (<a href="https://github.com/greenrd/stet">https://github.com/greenrd/stet</a>), which is licensed AGPL with an exception. I thought that tool was decent for allowing
a wide number of inputs, linked to particular text sections. It looks a lot like the comment bubbles you see in LibreOffice/OpenOffice (and Microsoft Word), with – IIRC – a “heat map” type feature to indicate areas of text that are receiving the most commentary.
That was 10+ years ago, and the tool might be improved from the way it functioned back then.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Richard Fontana can probably comment as to whether he thought it was effective from the receiving end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I do think there is a need for some other mechanism to gather commentary rather than the mailing list and archives. In response to recent questions raised about the process, I was trying to see the state of
the various licenses still awaiting a final decision, and what issues seemed to still be unresolved, and it’s hard to decipher (particularly for NOSA, which has lots of commentary over a long period of time).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_____replyseparator"></a><b>From:</b> License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Perens<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">My preference would be for OSI to use open source tools. It's a credibility thing. We talk the talk, we should walk the walk. For some reason OSI internal business is using
G Suite, and someone's using GitHub? As far as I'm aware, these things aren't entirely open source.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>