Subject: Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:47:53 -0500

Zak Greant wrote:
> Hi Matt, Greetings All,
> On 11/26/07, Matthew Flaschen <> wrote:
>>> I'd prefer to treat membership in the editor's group as something like
>>> commit access on a free/open software project.
>> To me, that just means they're regular (and thus reliable) contributors.
> Let's put one more 'r' into that mix - responsible. :)

I would include that in reliable, but yes. :)

>>  How can someone become a regular contributor to process if the process
>> list is entirely closed?  A better analogy would be if only the members
>> could modify tickets, but anyone could join the list and suggest changes
>> to tickets.  I think that would be more appropriate.
> I think that I need to finish working up a strawman process - right
> now we are discussing something that isn't at all well-defined yet.

Fair enough, but I'd rather help draft the process then criticize it
after it's fully formed.

>> On the other hand, the OSI editors list is clearly meant for certain
>> discussions, such as the contents of an FAQ.  Should someone have to
>> post an FAQ suggestion to license-discuss (off-topic) or send to the
>> moderator of OSI-editors (inefficient)?
> I had thought that it would happen by people asking questions on
> whichever list is (or as the case happens, isn't) relevant. An editor
> would then pick it up and drop it into the appropriate FAQ.

I suppose that's reasonable (though an FAQ can be useful without
containing solely true FAQs), but how can people ask questions on
OSI-editors if they're not members of the list?

Matt Flaschen