Henning Makholm said: > D. When you volunteer to summarize, select a random 6-digit integer > as a "priority" and write it in your email. If several people > volunteer without seeing each other volunteering, the one with the > highest number wins the responsibility. (This will break the tie > without wasting more messages on the matter).
Perhaps instead of a random number requirement, just have those people that volunteer to make the summary between (A) and (E) work out off-list which of the volunteers will write the summary? (Especially since such volunteer collisions are probably fairly rare) (With the understanding that if multiple volunteers want to work together to collaborate on the summary, that's perfectly OK too.) > > E. When a week has passed from point (A), the winning volunteer > rereads the entire discussion, writes his summary and mails it to > the author with Cc to d-l. > > I don't see any need for presenting the summary for approval to d-l > before sending it to the author. It's not that hard to discover either > that there's consensus for free or non-free, or that there is no > consensus. If somebody abuses the system and starts writing inaccurate > summaries, it'll be easy to reach a consensus that he should not > volunteer. We can't stop him from sending his own opinion unsolicited > to the author (and even claim it's a d-l consensus) anyway. Depending on the depth of the discussion, it might be nice (although not required) for the volunteer drafters to send a draft summary to d-l before sending it on to upstream. Also, noting that "there is no clear consensus on d-l about the DFSG-freeness of clause X" would be a valuable service. Especially if that statement can be followed by "However, the following small change would maintain what appears to be your intent of that clause, and would be more clearly DFSG-free". --Joe
