Tobie, I don't understand the point that you are trying to make in your recent posts (about how the OSI election works and how the "winner takes" model is not representative of voter sentiment). Let me explain where my confusion about your message is centered:
Coraline has said many times that she seeks to change the OSD (specifically the part related to "fields of endeavor"). She also requested that OSI change the manner in which changes are made to the OSD (asking the OSI to create "a public, representative, and diverse working group to establish a mechanism for reviewing and potentially revising the OSD"). Changing the change-process clearly helps achieve her goal of changing the OSD because the current process and voting outcomes don't look as promising. Getting different people to decide these things (via appointment, not vote) should yield different results. I get the motivation, although I'm not convinced at its merit, I'm not confused about the suggestion. Where I'm unclear: based on your discussion of voter-sentiment and percentage-adding I'm trying to understand if you suggest that the decisions of such a working group should not employ a majority-rule process, as via that process, a minority view would not succeed at making the decision. In other words, are you suggesting a method in which multiple versions of a minority position can be added together in a manner that overrules a majority position? I'm asking because I really want to understand what processes you are recommending OSI use that you believe would result in the outcomes you are looking for. Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:32 AM Tobie Langel <to...@unlockopen.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:08 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > >> From which, I would conclude, the winners got substantial majorities of >> the voters, and no one else did, even if we combine candidates based on >> platforms. So they really deserve a seat at the table; everyone else, >> probably not. >> > > If OSI is to be the custodian of open source, it needs to be > representative of the open source community at large. Not based on a winner > takes model, which is, by definition, not representative. > > --tobie > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
