[rfc-i] [Trustees] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale forProposed TLP Revisions)
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon Jul 20 13:53:48 PDT 2009
I think Harald's suggestion makes sense and should be implemented.
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
>> Ok. So is the point then just not to have to issue a new RFC if the
>> Trust decides they want a different license? I.e. is that the
>> "future-proofing" that the proposed change is supposed to provide?
> I apologize if my unfortunate use of the term "future-proofing" has
> caused angst. But I was referring to the proposal made by Harald
> Alvestrand, as a member of the community, not a proposal made by the
> Trust. Harald's proposal should not be taken as an indication of the
> Trust's intentions. I believe that Russ and I were merely saying that
> Harald's proposal seemed reasonable. If other members of the community
> disagree, then that's fine too.
>> If so, in light of the other comments people are making about how the
>> Trust appears to be rather more activist than some people find
>> congenial (I am reserving my opinion on that topic), I'm not sure the
>> proposed change is a good one. If the Trust needed to change the
>> license, there would be two reasons to do it, I think:
>> 1. The community wants the change.
>> 2. External forces (say, legal precedents) cause the
>> currently-selected license to be the wrong one.
>> But both of those cases seem to me to be the sort of thing that
>> requires some community input and some rough consensus, no? If so,
>> then what would be hard about writing a new RFC that captured this
>> update, and publishing it the way of the usual RFC process?
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at shinkuro.com
>> Shinkuro, Inc.
More information about the rfc-interest