Having a process editor is seen as a filter for volume and looped
continuation of unresolving disputes. This is why courts have judges, isn't
it? Selecting a person who does not have a stake in the outcome and
understands the issues well enough to represent them would be a good idea.
Legal professionals fit this role well, but *not *the ones who volunteer
for OSI. They have a stake in the outcome.
Thanks
Bruce
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote:
> My main concern with this is that for some (many?) submitters it is hard
> to tell wheat from chaff. So their summaries of the ongoing discussion are
> not likely to be particularly useful (either in the moment or later).
> That's part of why I suggest a tool with wiki-ish participation, not just
> something maintained strictly by the submitter.
>
> But I suppose we could also just deal with pro se summaries the same way
> we deal with pro se licenses.
>
>
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
