public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List

[Grayg Ralphsnyder]

I have been reading this for several months now and find it very 
interesting and fascinating and complicated at times.  I've tossed my 
2-cents in once or twice.  I would like to be involved as more than just 
an observer but know not what I could do.  I like open source, community 
development and involvement, try and pay if you like/keep it - and Star 
Trek TOS.  I don't care for software patents other than as documentation 
as to who figured something out first and as a way to share knowledge - 
maybe a bad analogy but patenting 'the wheel' does not help progress. 
I think that everyone has been approachable.  It would be silly if there 
were no 'brawls' and everyone agreed all the time - then there would 
only need to be one person making all the rules, guidelines, licenses, 
blah blah, etc..
Zak - here or off list - how can I help as a newbie ?

grayg ralphsnyder


Zak Greant wrote:
> Hey Brian, Greetings All,
>
> On 11/27/07, Brian Behlendorf <brian at hyperreal.org> wrote:
> ...
>   
>>> I am curious as to what you thought that you were signing up for?
>>>       
>> Go easy, Zak, we're still defining all this.
>>     
>
> Fair enough. :)
>
> I should likely have bit my tongue - or my fingers, as it were. I took
> umbrage at Larry writing, "I am not able to take responsibility for
> the trac tickets or database", as it gave me the impression that he
> hadn't taken the time to know what he was signing up for.
>
>   
>> The conflict of interest
>> portion rubbed me the wrong way too; just like the Wikipedia's ban on
>> people being able to edit their own or employers' pages.  I can see not
>> allowing someone who *proposed a license* to be allowed to triage issues
>> associated with that license, but otherwise I think the transparency of
>> actions and natural diversity of opinions between editors will keep us
>> honest.
>>     
>
> This is why I cast the role description as a draft or a strawman.
>
> I hope that I've been approachable on this and other points.
>
> If not, then it isn't my intent to be overly dictatorial - just
> dictatorial enough to keep the process moving along.
>
>   
>> I do have sympathy for Larry's position that the more administerial this
>> activity is defined to be, the more it seems like something OSI could hire
>> for.  But I don't think it was intended to be administerial - we're not
>> being asked to be Eunuchs writing a book on sex.
>>     
>
> Righto. The editors need to understand the issues that are involved if
> they want to be effective.
>
>