[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team, policy docs, licenses

[Philip Brown]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>...
>> As such, there is a higher standard to "do things properly".
>> I thought a simple way to describe that was as "a business".
>...
> The legal form of OpenCSW is a foundation, i.e. a non-profit
> association.
>
> Of course, that doesn't mean that we don't act professionally.
>
> Can you give an example of things that are done improperly, from a
> professional point of view,  in our activities?
>

Two such examples (but not the only examples) are;
1. not following good forms for discussion of the voting ballot,
before the vote ballot is actually active
2. people griping at me for pointing out "this policy document does
not say what you claim you want it to do"

Given that we are a legal entity, we then are sadly held to "legal
(ie: lawer-proof) standards" of accuracy in our official policies and
documents.
Me pointing out the documents are inaccurate, and asking that they be
made to match the claimed stated intent, is NOT "obstructionist".
It's me showing professional levels of diligence.
The professional thing for others to do, would be to recognize that.
The anti-professional thing is to throw insults and insinuations at me
for doing so.

I understand that many people dont like dealing with that level of
pickiness. That's why there is a separate "debian-policy" mailing
list.
So probably people who dont like dealing with minutia at opencsw, need
to either kill-file emails with "policy" in the subject, or we need to
have a separate opencsw policy mailing list (publically readable, of
course) for policy discussions.