On 3/20/2019 3:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I have a different concern that goes to the political nature of > license proposals. If the submitter is responsible for maintaining the > PEP document, how can bias be avoided or minimized in the content of > the document? Even if one relies on a non-submitter volunteer somehow, > in many cases third-party observers are far from neutral. > > (I happen to trust *VanL* to do a good job of hypothetically > maintaining a PEP document for CAL, but that's because I've seen over > the years that VanL is unusually receptive to acknowledging and > considering alternate points of view. :) I was thinking that the public nature of the document would keep the recordkeeper honest. (Although I suppose that then spawns a second generation dispute about whether the document is accurate.) But the person with primary responsibility for its currency and completeness doesn't have to have final authority on its accuracy. That lesser burden could reside in a volunteer third party or board member.
Mostly I was just trying to figure out how to avoid putting more work on volunteers. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
