[License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)]

VanL van.lindberg at gmail.com
Sat Mar 16 06:27:02 UTC 2019

Hmm. I know a bit about the PEP process. It does seem like it would be a
valuable example to follow.


Van Lindberg
van.lindberg at gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 7:54 PM Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Sullivan <johns at fsf.org> wrote:
>> I think some of this can be done without changing tools. Just as an idea
>> from someone who can't volunteer the time to help with it, each license
>> application could be assigned to a caretaker responsible for maintaining
>> a dossier/brief for the application, listing points raised in
>> discussion, posted regularly to the list (more regularly than monthly,
>> and with a tagged subject heading). The dossier becomes a collaborative
>> document that people in the discussion can be asked to refer
>> specifically to when making their arguments.
> This is starting to sound a bit like Python's PEP process (Python
> Enhancement Proposal), which I would recommend:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/
> A PEP document summarizes things like the proposer, background, pros,
> cons, decider, etc. and it evolves over time. While a PEP discussion could
> be spread across multiple mediums and channels and get contentious, the PEP
> document itself is updated over time and summarizes everything in one
> place. When a final decision is made, the decision is added to the PEP with
> the rationale. In OSI's case, such a document could also say how people
> voted, to provide more transparency. It would also be a valuable reference
> to refer back to.
> --Chris
>> The quality of the dossier
>> would help outside people assess the process, and help the OSI board.
>> I've found the summaries that started recently to already be very
>> useful.
>> The tools you mention don't use AI or something to sort discussions, so
>> in the end you're still relying on people to put the right points on the
>> right issues, to create new areas for new issues, etc. I also don't see
>> how they solve the problem of some people having louder voices, speaking
>> rudely, or carrying on various personal grudges or undisclosed agendas.
>> Those all seem like problems to me best addressed by finding more
>> volunteer facilitators for OSI, no matter what platform is used.
>> (I do like Discourse, and we use it at the FSF.)
>> -john
>> --
>> John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
>> GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
>> https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS
>> Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
>> <https://my.fsf.org/join>.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190316/31dd3855/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list