The voiced concern was that L-R participants don’t fully represent the views of the wider community.
So if the board just accepts L-R consensus then the opinion of the board is immaterial. From: Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com<mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019, 2:41 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org<mailto: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] >>-----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? _______________________________________________ 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
