On 2019-03-15 3:16 p.m., Bruce Perens wrote:
McCoy, you aren't really talking about the decision process at all.
This list is advisory. The OSI board votes, and we receive no tally
naming directors and their votes yay or nay, nor their rationale for
voting as they did. This makes it difficult for us to determine how we
should vote for OSI directors, since we have no idea how they actually
vote in office, or whether they actually read license-review at all.
Some seem to, but they almost all lurk 100% of the time and we have no
idea how they actually feel.
The OSI board is under no compulsion to listen to me or anyone else
who doesn't have a vote on the board.
I am not on the OSI Board any longer, but I think I can add a little
color to this. Simply put in my 6 years on the Board my recollection is
that virtually all of the licensing-related votes were unanimous[1].
There is no requirement in the Bylaws that the votes be so, but I do
think there is a sense that if there is a major split within the Board
that perhaps the license needs additional analysis. An example of that
was the resolution clearly stating a logjam on the NOSA 2.0[2].
The only one where two directors abstained (to the best of my
recollection) was the UPL[3], which was somewhat controversial at the
time. And I think the votes are actually relatively well documented as
you can see from the snippets below.
My personal opinion and recollection is that there isn't any conscious
intention to hide vote choices. Perhaps the minute taking could be
improved, but I actually think it's pretty clear who voted and how.
I would also point out that not everyone on the OSI Board is a licensing
expert. There are a variety of motivations to want to volunteer your
time to the OSI Board. For example, while I consider myself of middling
competence on legal issues, my main contribution was to help raise the
level of corporate sponsorship.
I do think that it was helpful to have lawyers on the board, and I
certainly learned a lot from folks like Richard Fontana and Luis Villa
when I was there.
[1] From https://opensource.org/minutes2017FallF2F
*Motion (Richard):* Approve W3C Software and Document License (2015)*
Second (Deb).
Discussion:
Vote:* 10 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain; 1 Not Present [I was the one outside
of the room at the time of the vote, which is noted elsewhere in the
minutes]
[2] From https://opensource.org/minutes2017FallF2F
*Motion (Richard):* Adopt the following resolution: /Resolved,/
That, in view of the length, complexity, and ambiguities in the
submitted drafts of the NASA Open Source Agreement version 2.0, it
is the opinion of the OSI that the conformance of NOSA 2.0 to the
OSD cannot be assured. OSI thus can neither approve nor reject the
license, and NASA is invited to submit a new draft of NOSA for
consideration by the OSI.*
Second (Carol):
Discussion:
Vote:* 11 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain.
[3] From https://opensource.org/minutes20150204
*Motion (Simon):* Approve the Universal Permissive License (UPL)
license subject to the clarification of the language discussed.
*Second (Bruno).*
*Discussion:* Had several discussions with Oracle representatives
and community. Board agreed the UPL is OSD compliant, however
concerned about further changes. Oracle intends to release software
soon and wants us to approve, but prefers not to publish anything
until approved by the OSI as the recognize the authority of this
body and does not want release a license that is not OSI approved.
Initially the Board was waiting for JPC (sic) review, but that has
been undertaken with agreeable results. Some Board members raised
concerns over the use of the phrase, "Provided that..." It was
suggested that those Board members with concerns work with the
applicant to modify the license to address those concerns. If they
can be met as described, the Board would approve the UPL.
*Vote: *7 Yes; 0 No; 2 Abstain (Richard, Zack)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
