On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 03:46:25PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > On 2 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I formally propose that SPI step in and take control of its intellectual > > > property. > > I concur. > Third for that.
Then count me as one against. SPI currently does not have any formal membership policies, or any means for anyone but its board to control it. SPI does not have a history of fast and effective action -- we're still waiting for publication of all the comments it requested about who should control the open source mark, and we still haven't made any decision on that. At present we can't even say "yes" to an open source project that asks us for CVS space. SPI does not have a history of effective advocacy of free software to business or the masses. In short, I don't think SPI is well placed to do OSI's job, let alone do it better. Further, OSI is making efforts in the right direction. They are discussing how the APSL should be improved with Apple, and they've now published a list of board members. Sure. They're still a way off being open enough themselves, but this isn't the way to go about improving matters. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
pgpPRStqUbFSA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
