SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Matthew Flaschen]

Michael Tiemann wrote:
> Therefore, we'd like to invite those who think we should not
> approve the SocialText license to work out a common position on *why* we
> should not approve it, which could inform how SocialText could remedy
> your concerns.  And we'd like to invite those who think we should
> approve it (or should approve it with some minor change) to work out a
> common position on why we *should* approve it.  If one or both sides are
> willing to do this, I think that the Board's decision process will
> appear much more transparent.

I don't understand why the Board feels this is necessary.  This is a
discussion list, and I think people's arguments have naturally developed
that way.  This level of formality has never been requested before (to
my knowledge), and seems a bit like instruction creep.  I certainly
oppose the idea of creating separate lists and IRC channels.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070119/bbbfe963/attachment.sig>