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

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:21 PM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
> I cannot help wondering if Luis is seeking to solve the wrong problem.
> (As co-author of an essay on seeking help on technical problems, 'How to
> Ask Questions the Smart Way', I've seen a good bit of that.)  If the
> main problem is 'Sometimes, net.random participants on OSI mailing lists
> are misunderstood to be somehow reflecting the position of OSI', then
> perhaps the appropriate remedy is a stronger social convention for
> official OSI representatives to always identify themselves as such and
> state when they are speaking officially.

I've tried recently (I didn't do this before the past year) to use my
opensource.org email address to signal this.

> You could also alter the Mailman listinfo pages and new-subscriber text
> for license-review and license-discuss to stress these being public
> mailing lists open to any member of the public willing to abide by the
> code of conduct, and should NOT be assumed to speak for OSI unless so
> indicated.  However, to be rather blunt, I believe the recently
> disgruntled commenters are entirely aware of that fact, and, if they are
> not merely attempting passive-aggressive kickback against License
> Committee decisions they didn't like, are not easily distinguished from
> that interpretation.

I suspect so as well.

Richard




--