[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
mike at ayeltd.biz
Fri Dec 4 06:57:29 UTC 2009
At 03:39 PM 3/12/2009, SteveC wrote:
>On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:49 AM, 80n wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Ulf Möller <um at ulfm.de> wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm schrieb:
>> > The responsibility of the decision lies with the members. They need to
>> > be fully informed. If *I* were on the LWG, I would welcome opposition
>> > statements and include them in the letter I send to the members, because
>> > it is not *me* who makes the decision, and not me who has to take
>> > ultimate responsibility - it is the members. If I would keep crucial
>> > information away from them, that would only open the door to later
>> > claims of a doctored process.
>> I think in the interest of transparency the email should include link to
>> the archive of this discussion, or to a wiki page summarizing it.
>> Could the LWG please consider provision of a link to a wiki page where those who do not support the new license can put their case?
>> This is a formal request, copied to Mike Collinson, Chairman of the LWG.
>I too would like this opportunity and am formally asking the LWG to please consider a link to a wiki page where people who *do* support the new license can put their case, and also put their case as to why this is the least-worst solution. This might well be a different case than the LWG would put and therefore deserves it's own space. I also ask that this wiki page link be put above the link to the case against the license. This is copied to Mike, Chairman of the LWG.
The proposal document is the platform Why You Should Vote Yes, but I do not see why not. LWG has already asked for testimonials. I will put a link this morning.
More information about the osmf-talk