When considering process and decision-making rules, please recognize that the goal ought not be maximum precision of rules.
The precision of rules needs to be balanced against the reality that understanding is incomplete -- both incomplete understanding of the direct subject matter and, especially, of future contexts. Hard-edged rules are more susceptible of being gamed than rules that leave more allowance for judgment. Highly precise, well-intended rules may provide the satisfaction of clearer application, but are also are better targets for gaming, with results at odds with what was intended. I have seen this manifest in the realm of standards development. In development of industry standards, competitors jointly make decisions that can have significant commercial impact. Rules play important roles in managing the risks inherent such cooperation among competing entities. It has been challenging to strike that balance between precision of rules and understanding of their implications. This consideration looms in my mind as I see consideration of: - adding language to make aspects of the OSD more "clear"; - stronger use of voting to make decisions. Recognize that rules are made on imperfect knowledge Please let the rules be no more perfect than the knowledge underlying them. -- Scott
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
