Subject: Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List
From: "Zak Greant" <zak.greant@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:30:31 -0800

Hi Matt, Greetings All,

On 11/26/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
> This is an important question, and shouldn't be at all ambiguous.
> Essentially, I think OSI-editors should be bureaucratic, with the open
> license-discuss continuing to advise the Board on the substantive issues.
>
> Ernest created a (probably unintentional) seed of doubt with, "Given the
> emotional nature of open source -- and the legal sensitivity of many of
> these topics -- I want to have a small list of trusted people who are
> able to edit it."

The editors group exists to ensure that the issues people raise are:
* noticed
* responsibly collected (and stored in an easy-to-review format)
* addressed

In their role as editors, they do not raise issues or have opinions on
the issues.

If an editor has an issue to raise as an individual, then they may not
act as an editor for that issue.

> To me, the Board and license-discuss will continue to do the real work
> of "editing" open source, while the OSI-editors should be more
> "implementing" it, by facilitating (but never directing) the work of
> both groups.

Agreed.

-- 
Cheers!
--zak