On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:43 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] > >>On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek > >>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:48 AM > >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: > >>[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License] > > > >>>>On 5/20/19 9:41 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > >>>>> One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license > >>>>> approval in addition to a discussion period. > >>Interesting thought. > > Wasn't the point of the OSI board elections that were held recently to > provide a voting mechanism, via indirect democracy, on OSI decisions -- > including license approval decisions?
Exactly! The paradox with a naive direct democracy is that the process often fails to accurately reflect the opinion of its population. The silent consent becomes an empty vote, and those with energy to actually vote represent extreme viewpoints. (And in this case, it's likely that those opposing something would always have more energy than those who do not.) So this is why the elected board bears the responsibility of determining the opinion of the community (both on license-review and outside of it), but it needs to be able to make this conclusion without a direct democracy vote. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
