On 20/09/2011 11:28, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > Shinji might be correct in that "we had enough discussion about > licensing" (even though I think some of the questions asked for years > have been avoided rather than answered), but IF it is "time to vote" > then the alternatives 1-4 and the place (clinical list) for the vote > are highly questionable. I also question the wisdom of letting Sam > alone decide this potential voting procedure. It is also questionable > what value a vote by anybody else than the board would mean, there is > no formal community process in place in openEHR yet, the board is the > only formal power. > > Some issue details: > > *a) *I don't think it is fair *move the place* to discuss the issue > several times. > > By moving the place of discussion away from the places were arguments > and counter arguments are already visible does not lead to a less > "heated" discussion, rather it leads to repetitions in order to ensure > that the arguments and unanswered questions are visible where the > action is. Is the move because you fear the visibility of counter > arguments and unanswered questions or is there some other > understandable reason? > > * First we had list discussions on the technical list > * Then we were asked to use a first wikipage including wikipage > comments: > > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal > (OK > move since this is neither purely technical or clinical) > * Then a second wikipage including wikipage comments: > > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SA > (Questionable > split/move) >
just to clarify: the point of doing this was to have a known place where the actual Transition proposal was posted and described in detail, as opposed to various informal 'proposals' / discussions so far. Remember, what we are discussing is what is in the Transition white paper, and if the discussion changes the white paper, then that needs to be recorded as well. It does mean some repetition unfortunately, but we need to encapsulate the discussion about the Transition document properly. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110920/dc6366dd/attachment.html>
