Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-XWiki.ElanaHashman
	1	+XWiki.lamby

Content

...	...	@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
1		-The [[License Review>>url:http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org]] mailing list [[is considering>>url:http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003384.html]] using a project management tool for public tracking of the license review process. This page is for collecting information related to this tool selection.
	1	+The [[License Review>>url:http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org]] mailing list [[is considering>>url:http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003384.html]] using a project management tool for public tracking of the license review process. This page is for collecting information related to this tool selection. Note that the license-review list and corresponding that license review process in general is related yet distinct from the license-discuss mailing list, which this document does address further.
2	2
3		-The License Committee recommends hiring a person to aid in the identification and implementation of a better workflow for license review. We have decided that the current email listserve is inadequate because it is exceedingly difficult to follow discussions, which reduces participation. The tasks that this person will undertake are:
	3	+The License Committee recommends hiring a person to aid in the identification and implementation of a better workflow for the review of licenses. We have decided that the current email-based system (Mailman) is inadequate as it is exceedingly difficult to follow discussions, which reduces participation. The tasks that this person will undertake are:
4	4
5		-* Identify an appropriate license-review vehicle with the below attributes
	5	+* Identify an appropriate license-review vehicle with the attributes below
6	6	* Implement the vehicle on an OSI-approved host
7	7	* Document the expected process for reviewing a license and the roles of all participants in the process
8	8	* Document the solution and any maintenance tasks so they can be handed off to a new maintainer
...	...	@@ -11,8 +11,8 @@
11	11	(((
12	12	The person may also be asked to:
13	13
14		-* create a maintainable system for making machine-readable licenses available
15		-* create a complete, searchable database of all license-review emails
	14	+* Create a maintainable system for making machine-readable licenses available
	15	+* Create a complete, searchable database of all license-review emails
16	16	)))
17	17
18	18	== Requirements for license-review process ==
...	...	@@ -21,18 +21,18 @@
21	21
22	22	* Ability to submit a license for review
23	23	* Being able to immediately identify the current state of review for a license (eg. "approved", "rejected", "new", "being redrafted", "invalid", "rejected", etc.)
24		-* Ability to submit updated revisions of a license, without destroying previous ones or history
25		-* Ability to comment on specific sections/words/lines of a given draft of license
26		-* Ability to comment on a license generally
	24	+* Ability to submit updated revisions of a license, without destroying previous ones or associated history. (Licenses often go through multiple rounds of revisions or drafts based on feedback received.)
	25	+* Ability to comment on specific sections/words/lines of a given draft of license. (Sections of licenses that have been revised are, by that very fact, areas of interest)
	26	+* Ability to comment on a license in a general sense
27	27	* Ability to moderate discussions (including removing comments, editing comments, banning users)
28	28	* Ability to close the process with the publication of an accompanying rationale document
29		-* Discussions must be publicly accessible, without authentication
	29	+* Discussions must be publicly accessible, ie. without authentication
30	30	* Users must authenticate and maintain a consistent identity in order to comment/participate in the process
31	31	* Time-stamping of all comments and submissions
32	32	* Entirely separate discussions for each license
33	33	* Discussions must be archiveable and available to reference
34	34	* Easy to learn and use by non-technical users
35		-* Must not assume experience with specific technical tools (i.e. requirement to use git, XML, a specific programming language, etc.)
	35	+* Must not assume experience with specific technical tools (i.e. requirement to use Git, XML, or a specific programming language, etc.)
36	36	* Tools should be open source
37	37
38	38	(((
...	...	@@ -51,11 +51,3 @@
51	51	* Welcoming to new community members
52	52	* Badges to easily identify participants to provide context (e.g. OSI board members, long-time community participants, etc.)
53	53	* Not mandatory to use the tool in order to participate in review, i.e., system integrates with an email workflow
54		-
55		-(((
56		-
57		-)))
58		-
59		-(((
60		-
61		-)))