alternate points of view. :)
>
> Richard
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:09 PM Chris Jerdonek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:55 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> >>
> >> We should keep this in mind as we consider processes like PEP. They are
> desi
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:55 PM Bruce Perens wrote:
> We should keep this in mind as we consider processes like PEP. They are
> designed to create consensus, and their subject has mainly been technical
> issues where consensus is easier to form. Just how will they handle a
> failure to achieve co
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:30 AM VanL wrote:
>
> The second part is an ongoing record of comments made and responses.
> Usually, accepted suggestions are incorporated into the proposal; rejected
> suggestions are documented with a rationale. That is what is happening with
> the CAL. Accepted sugge
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Sullivan wrote:
> I think some of this can be done without changing tools. Just as an idea
> from someone who can't volunteer the time to help with it, each license
> application could be assigned to a caretaker responsible for maintaining
> a dossier/brief fo
y be an illegal tying
> relationship, but the State of California probably has sovereign immunity.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Chris Jerdonek
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a question regarding some open source language in a document that
>>
Hi all,
I have a question regarding some open source language in a document that
Los Angeles County published recently. I'm not asking for legal advice, but
just to get a better understanding as someone who is working in support of
open source voting systems in the City and County of San Francisco
