[License-discuss] The pro se license constructor
luis at lu.is
Tue Mar 19 23:25:09 UTC 2019
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> 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
> >> 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.
My main concern with this is that for some (many?) submitters it is hard to
tell wheat from chaff. So their summaries of the ongoing discussion are not
likely to be particularly useful (either in the moment or later). That's
part of why I suggest a tool with wiki-ish participation, not just
something maintained strictly by the submitter.
But I suppose we could also just deal with pro se summaries the same way we
deal with pro se licenses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss