[License-discuss] The political / technical dichotomy

[Luis Villa]

To be clear, my concern about a summarization process is less "honesty",
and more simply basic competence :) If anything, I think centralizing most
documentation in 1-2 places rather than throughout a thread would make it
much easier to sniff out bad faith - it'd be much more apparent in the
summary than in the knife-fighting of many argumentative threads. (And that
applies to _any_ bad faith by any party, not just the submitter, like
aggressive/misleading claims to authority, misleading or irrelevant claims
about the history/intent of past licenses/documents, etc.)

But that assumes the summary gets written at all, with even the most basic
grasp of the issues at play. In either case (competence or bad faith) a
motivated board member or other volunteer could perhaps be very helpful
there, if they could be found.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:32 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

>
> Pamela,
>
> I think that this would introduce a constant source of tension and more
> argument. And I hear we have enough of that :-)
> I sympathize with Luis' unease in this case.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:39 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I was thinking that the public nature of the document would keep the
>> recordkeeper honest. (Although I suppose that then spawns a second
>> generation dispute about whether the document is accurate.) But the
>> person with primary responsibility for its currency and completeness
>> doesn't have to have final authority on its accuracy. That lesser burden
>> could reside in a volunteer third party or board member.
>>
>> Mostly I was just trying to figure out how to avoid putting more work on
>> volunteers.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190320/e429aeba/attachment.html>