Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

...	...	@@ -1,11 +1,23 @@
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.
	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
5		-* Identify an appropriate license-review vehicle with the attributes below
	5	+Stage 1:
	6	+
	7	+* Identify an appropriate license-review vehicle(s) with the attributes below
	8	+
	9	+(((
	10	+Stage 2:
	11	+)))
	12	+
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
	16	+
	17	+(((
	18	+Stage 3:
	19	+)))
	20	+
9	9	* Evaluate feasibility of creating a complete, searchable database of all license-review emails, either incorporated into the tool or separate from the tool (currently emails are at at least three different urls)
10	10
11	11	(((
...	...	@@ -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)
	37	+* 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 authentication
	41	+* 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