Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List

[Matthew Flaschen]

Zak Greant wrote:
>>> The idea is that the osi-editors list would be composed of long-term
>>> license-discuss members who have demonstrated their commitment to the
>>> community.
>> I see why a new list is needed (it will be focused on meta-issues
>> relating to process, as opposed to actual consideration of licenses),
>> but am not sure limiting membership in the new list is necessary.
> 
> I'd prefer to treat membership in the editor's group as something like
> commit access on a free/open software project.

To me, that just means they're regular (and thus reliable) contributors.
 How can someone become a regular contributor to process if the process
list is entirely closed?  A better analogy would be if only the members
could modify tickets, but anyone could join the list and suggest changes
to tickets.  I think that would be more appropriate.

> I'd also prefer it that the editors are nominated by community members
> and that the nominations are validated by the community at large.
> 
> If we don't have these controls, it is likely that that the ticket
> system function more like a forum or mailing list - which is not
> desirable. The ticket system is meant to be a place where we can
> easily see the full range of opinions on any issue that we are
> tracking, rather than a place where people can discuss.

I agree the ticket system shouldn't be the forum.

On the other hand, the OSI editors list is clearly meant for certain
discussions, such as the contents of an FAQ.  Should someone have to
post an FAQ suggestion to license-discuss (off-topic) or send to the
moderator of OSI-editors (inefficient)?

>> Also, is this meant to have private archives?
> 
> I would prefer public archives.

I agree.

Matt Flaschen