[License-discuss] The pro se license constructor

[Chris Jerdonek]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:30 AM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The second part is an ongoing record of comments made and responses.
> Usually, accepted suggestions are incorporated into the proposal; rejected
> suggestions are documented with a rationale. That is what is happening with
> the CAL. Accepted suggestions are being incorporated into the live
> document. Rejected suggestions are declined with a rationale.
>

Thanks for your summary of the PEP format, as well as some of the process.

One small clarification though (speaking as a Python developer, which you
may be, too): I wouldn’t say it does or needs to document *every* comment
(as that would be too lengthy and cumbersome). Rather, if a number of
comments are making the same point, it is the job of the PEP author to
distill that into a more general point of objection. In this way the PEP is
concise without losing essential info. Also, if a suggestion is
incorporated, I don’t think the original comment needs to be preserved as
the content would already be reflected in the main portion of the document
itself.

And yes, to echo others’ comments, the PEP document doesn’t help so much
with the discussion medium itself like email or online forums. Rather, its
benefits are more for things like — helping people get up to speed, serving
as a snapshot of the current state of discussion, avoiding rehashing
previous arguments, ensuring that people’s objections are “heard” and
documented for posterity, and serving as a useful historical record of the
organization’s past decisions.

—Chris








>
> Relative to the CAL, part of that is on this list, and part of it is
> viewable via the Google Doc. In particular, I am replying to suggestions
> that are not adopted, rather than "resolving" them. This is so that the
> question and response stay visible for other viewers.
>
> The third is a process marker. For the CAL, it is "in discussion" (on
> L-D), after which it would go to "in review" (on L-R), and finally accepted
> or rejected (by the OSI board).
>
> Thanks,
> Van
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:35 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3/18/2019 9:21 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
>> > Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet
>> clear
>> >> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
>> >> discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable
>> or
>> >> uncomfortable. Python mostly used the python-dev mailing list.
>> > As one of the people who suggested something along these lines -- it
>> > helps with tracking because a document is developed during the
>> > conversation, and conversations can be expected to refer to the
>> > document. Revisions of the document are posted periodically with a
>> > standard subject line so that people who have not been able to track the
>> > discussion threads can jump in, see where things stand, and still
>> > contribute meaningfully.
>> >
>> > It doesn't help with the uncomfortable part.
>> >
>> > -john
>> >
>> Here's something to ponder - what if the license submitter was asked to
>> maintain the PEP.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Pamela S. Chestek
>> Chestek Legal
>> PO Box 2492
>> Raleigh, NC 27602
>> 919-800-8033
>> pamela at chesteklegal.com
>> www.chesteklegal.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190319/2d3c4a35/attachment.html>