www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: on consensus, and serenity
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:24:36 GMT
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Martin van den Bemt <mllist@mvdb.net> wrote:
> Or simply limit the comments to the one who opend the issue and people
> specifically authorized to comment on them.

I don't think that's necessary or appropriate.  I'd personally rather
these discussions to be messy and more open than clean and more
closed.  My sense is that Jim feels the same way -- ultimately this is
his JIRA (and list) to run as he pleases.

Should anybody wish to take on the task of documenting a cleaned up
(as in: less confusing, emphatically NOT a sanitized version) history
of discussions that lead up to decisions, I would suggest that the
wiki is the place to do so, complete with forward and back pointers to
both the final resolution and unfiltered discussions.

If that were done, and vandalizing turned out to be a problem, I could
see an argument for limiting who could update the wiki.

Back on the original topic, I'm unenthusiastic about whether such an
effort would add any value.  Our current policy seems to be widely
understood and supported.  If there were signs that the single
individual who has consistently disagreed over a long period of time
would move on from this subject if there were more documentation, I
would enthusiastically participate.  A good place to start would be a
simple yes or no answer to the two questions posed at [1] -- feel free
to treat them as two separate questions.

If, as I strongly suspect, that the answers to those two questions
demonstrates that there is a significant and salient difference
between those two licenses, one that affects those who chose to make
and sell commercial and proprietary software, then we can discuss the
ramifications of that choice.  As I see it, the difference in values
seems to be an argument that we should focus on those who simply want
software without cost (few of which who ever contribute back) even if
that is to the detriment of those that wish to produce software for
sale under different license terms (many of which do contribute back,
even if they aren't required to do so).  But I'm getting ahead of
myself: it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion on that topic
as long as the questions in (1) remain unanswered.

On a related subject, since the topic of moderation of this list were
brought up, it might be worth adapting and adopting a list policy.  A
possible starting point:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines

In this case, the fifth bullet ("It's inappropriate to repeat the same
argument over and over without adding new information.") is
particularly relevant.

> Mvgr,
> Martin

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://s.apache.org/rv

> 2015-08-14 9:00 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ...The main item that pains me... is when a JIRA issue opened for
>>> assistance gets wildly differing responses (one based on existing
>>> policy, the other based on desired policy)....
>>
>> In such cases someone with authority (so ultimately our VP legal)
>> should indicate in the ticket which answer is which.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message