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

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> 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

This is not an example but an opinion. An example would be: in the
message xxx the following "yyy" is not professional.

> 2. people griping at me for pointing out "this policy document does
> not say what you claim you want it to do"

What you describe is your feelings, i.e., that people are "griping" at
you. Have you envisioned that the other people feel the same way with
regard to your way of discussing?

> 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.

Sorry to say, but this "legal entity" argument is inappropriate. Again,
we are not a business, with legal counsel, contracts, customers and
everything that a business has. We are an association of volunteers,
donating our work to the foundation. That is not to say that we don't
have a legal context, it's to say that it's not the same as that for a
business.

> 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.

Even if it would be true, which I don't think, it is felt as
obstruction. Introducing regularly new arguments, e.g., "legal entity",
constraints, &c.

> The professional thing for others to do, would be to recognize that.

If people don't agree with you they are unprofessional? How's that?

> The anti-professional thing is to throw insults and insinuations at me
> for doing so.

Can you show examples of insults that were thrown to you?

> I understand that many people dont like dealing with that level of
> pickiness. That's why there is a separate "debian-policy" mailing
> list.

If we volunteered on the policy review is that we want to discuss. What
we don't wish is to run in circles.

> 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.

I have asked, from the beginning, to have policy discussions on a
separate and private list. If my memory is good you were one of those
who were against.

-- 
Peter