<div dir="ltr">The complaint which spurred this action was ad-hominem in nature, and this continues to be the case. Let's please not try to hide that it's directed squarely at me, except that we have just for the first time had Nigel complain that Richard Fontana also dominated the mailing list in 2012. Let's also be clear what the action is: I, and others, have today been ejected from the license committee.<div><br></div><div>I believe the main offense I've committed is being a vigorously participating authority on the matter of the OSD and Open Source licensing. OSI has been eager to make use of this authority where it is convenient to them, and currently has me representing their organization to the European Union government and global industry.</div><div><br></div><div>OSI is increasingly being pressured to adopt licenses with <i>a common anti-user theme. </i>As an individual, I believe it's important to push back against such licenses, and that they should be disapproved on the basis of the OSD and Software Freedom. As an investor in a significant number of Open Source companies, both individually and on behalf of my employer, I also have a legitimate interest to represent in keeping the terms of Open Source close to those which led to its success and are essential for its continued success.</div><div><br></div><div>Discussion of the last license reviewed easily topped an arbitrary number which, I am told, repels people from participation. There naturally will be need for further discussion when the license submitter is incomplete in their responses, ignores issues, or presents them in the light most favorable to their client, which are all things we can expect. Thus, I reject such arbitrary counts.</div><div><br></div><div>A board member, perhaps acting as an interim moderator, recently dinged me for using the word "absurd". This is the only moderation communication I have received this year. I have been an eager participant in implementing codes of conduct on Open Source projects, and am not clear just what part of the code <i>that </i>one falls under. Separately from codes, collegiality obviously has value, and should be maintained, but I would not have though that one non-collegial.</div><div><br></div><div>I am having trouble valuing the complaints of the so-far-non-participants when their main distinguishing characteristic is that they <i>don't</i> participate. If OSI is changing the policy, OSI will need to show that people with diverse viewpoints actually participate to a greater extent than they did before - not that discussion is globally reduced.</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks</div><div><br></div><div> Bruce</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:51 AM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela.chestek@opensource.org" target="_blank">pamela.chestek@opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<u>Summary</u><br>
The directors of the board of the Open Source Initiative recognize
the process for discussion and review of new licenses proposed for
approval by the organization can use improvement and would benefit
from evolution. In particular, it does not appear as though all
points of view on open source licensing are represented in the
discussion here. To address this situation we have created a Board
Committee for license approval to evaluate responses on-list,
appointed more moderators, and will devise a new moderation
strategy.<br>
<br>
<u>Proposal</u><br>
We anticipate that the effort to improve the quality of discussion
on the license lists will be an iterative process. This email
describes our first step, which is to approach the community and
elicit feedback on this approach. We anticipate further steps
including a review of tools, but we’re not yet at that stage.<br>
<br>
<u>Channels</u><br>
License review vs. License discuss lists<br>
<br>
<a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a> is the email address for
submitting a license for which you seek OSI approval following the
process at <a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/approval" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/approval</a>. The list is open to the
public, so anyone can give their opinion about a license. The OSI
License Committee considers the viewpoints expressed on the
license-review list in making its license approval recommendation to
the OSI Board. Since the purpose of the list is to inform the
Committee and the Board, discussion of substantive issues off-list
is not recommended. If a license submitter elects to respond to a
substantive question submitted to them off-list, the submitter is
encouraged to copy the license-review list also on their response
after redacting the identity of the person sending the
communication. <br>
<br>
<a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a> is for general questions about
open source licenses and for licenses in early stage development.
The list is open to the public and anyone can give feedback. A
moderator may decide that a license submitted to license-review
isn’t sufficiently developed and will move it to license-discuss for
additional work. We recommend that you carry out your license
development process on a publicly viewable venue (preferably one
where collaboration is also possible) and regularly seek views on
license-discuss. Note that agreement on license-discuss does not
guarantee agreement on license-review, as the audiences differ.<br>
<br>
<u>Moderation</u><br>
The board recognizes that the license-review mailing list would
benefit from further, more concerted moderation, both to ensure
appropriate conversation and to maintain the pace of discussions.
This more concerted process will evolve in the following steps:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>We will develop rules to encourage wider participation. We
perceive that some are discouraged from participating because of
offensive tone, frequency, or repetitiveness of messages. We
will develop moderation standards to address these hurdles.</li>
<li>A moderator will also advance the conversation, by following
up with the license steward on unanswered questions and ensuring
that all topics of interest have been fully fleshed out.</li>
<li>We will assure observance of the Code of Conduct for the
mailing lists, available at:
<a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/codeofconduct/licensing" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/codeofconduct/licensing</a>.</li>
</ul>
<br>
<u>Changes to the Website</u><br>
We have also made a minor change to the language describing the
license review process on <a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/approval" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/approval</a>. The page
formerly said “Approve, if (a) there is sufficient consensus
emerging from community discussion that approval is justified, and
(b) the OSI determines that the license conforms to the Open Source
Definition and guarantees software freedom." The page now says
“Approve if, after taking into consideration community discussion,
the OSI determines that the license conforms to the Open Source
Definition and guarantees software freedom.”<br>
<br>
We have also clarified the timing of the review decision.<br>
<br>
<u>License Review Committee</u><br>
The License Review Committee is an OSI Board committee made up of
the following board members, as of May 2019:<br>
<br>
Pamela Chestek, chair, <a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela.chestek@opensource.org" target="_blank">pamela.chestek@opensource.org</a><br>
Elana Hashman, <a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:elana.hashman@opensource.org" target="_blank">elana.hashman@opensource.org</a><br>
Chris Lamb, <a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chris.lamb@opensource.org" target="_blank">chris.lamb@opensource.org</a><br>
Simon Phipps, <a class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:webmink@opensource.org" target="_blank">webmink@opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
The License Review Committee will summarize and report the
license-review discussions to the Board for the Board’s approval or
disapproval of a proposed license. Members of the Committee also
serve as moderators for the two mailing lists.<br>
<br>
<u>What We’re Asking</u><br>
Let us know what you think of these changes. <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail-m_-4763275074374179993moz-signature" cols="72">--
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-7336080183237343293gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Bruce Perens - Partner, <a href="http://OSS.Capital" target="_blank">OSS.Capital</a>.</div></div></div></div>