As opposed to the transparent and fair system where one individual held up the vote on a license for three years AFTER consensus had been reached on the list for approval and the former moderator had so recommended to the board?
I’m not advocating for a voting process but the current system is opaque despite having a public mailing list. ObDis Speaking only for myself From: Richard Fontana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Yes Date: Monday, May 20, 2019, 10:33 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] Potential for abuse in certain cases -- suppose a company writes a controversial license and wants it to get OSI-approved, or wants to see a third-party-submitted license rejected, and tries to manipulate the process by encouraging employees to sign up for individual memberships. On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:48 AM Pamela Chestek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > +1 919-800-8033 > [email protected] > www.chesteklegal.com<http://www.chesteklegal.com> > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org -- Richard Fontana Senior Commercial Counsel Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
