Changes for page License Review Tool Requirements, Candidates and Selection
Last modified by Stefano Maffulli on 2021/08/14 00:21
Change comment:
Cleanup of Chris's edits
Summary
-
Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki.lam by1 +XWiki.ElanaHashman - Content
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ 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 relatedyet distinct from the license-discuss mailing list, which this document does addressfurther.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 distinct from the **license-discuss** mailing list, which this document does not address. 2 2 3 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 ... ... @@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ 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 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)25 +* Ability to comment on specific sections/words/lines of a given draft of license. (Sections of licenses that have been revised are areas of interest) 26 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, ie.without authentication29 +* Discussions must be publicly accessible, 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