[rfc-i] [Trustees] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale forProposed TLP Revisions)

[Joel M. Halpern]

I think Harald's suggestion makes sense and should be implemented.
Joel

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?
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at shinkuro.com
>> Shinkuro, Inc.
>>
>