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 professi
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
>
> On 3/18/2019 9:21 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
> > Bruce Perens writes:
> >
> >> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet
> clear
> >> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
> >> discu
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
Regarding PEPs, the process relative to the CAL is not too far off from a
PEP-like process. Each PEP has one or more authors and champions - in this
case me. The PEP itself is essentially a long-form summary of the proposal,
subsequent discussion and decisions, and
Ordinarily, there are three main
On 3/18/2019 9:21 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
> Bruce Perens writes:
>
>> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet clear
>> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
>> discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable or
>>
Bruce Perens writes:
> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet clear
> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
> discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable or
> uncomfortable. Python mostly used the python-dev ma
better
> as opposed to just me grinding old axes...or not.
>
>
> *From: *Bruce Perens
> *Date: *Sunday, Mar 17, 2019, 11:15 AM
> *To: *license-discuss@lists.opensource.org <
> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license c
opposed
to just me grinding old axes...or not.
From: Bruce Perens mailto:br...@perens.com>>
Date: Sunday, Mar 17, 2019, 11:15 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor
Oops -
Oops - sorry about the incorrect Latin.
Nigel, if lawyers all agreed there would be no need for courts. OSI had
it's own counsel arguing against elements of NOSA, and there were other
such counsel on the list. While I have only been participating for a year,
I saw significant problems in the licen
