[License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

The voiced concern was that L-R participants don’t fully represent the views of the wider community.

So if the board just accepts L-R consensus then the opinion of the board is immaterial.
From: Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com<mailto:mccoy.smith at intel.com>>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019, 2:41 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
>>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:48 AM
>>To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]


>>>>On 5/20/19 9:41 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>>>>> One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in addition to a discussion period.
>>Interesting thought.

Wasn't the point of the OSI board elections that were held recently to provide a voting mechanism, via indirect democracy, on OSI decisions -- including license approval decisions?

_______________________________________________
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/20190520/9bb78934/attachment.html>