Fedora Board Recap 07-06-2011

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 07/07/2011 01:22 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> Well, in this particular case, it doesn't have to be either/or.  But
> as that applies to the FPCA, we either make it mandatory (and live
> with a safety net of "implicit licensing"), or we don't name it
> mandatory and go the route of "explicit licensing" on every single
> contribution.  I don't see a way to avoid the either/or in that.

As I have pointed out, there are some contributions Fedora routinely
accepts that doesn't have a license and isn't covered by the FPCA

>> My concerns as I clarified several times had nothing to do with usability.
> That was a misunderstanding on our part, then.  I don't remember which
> of the Board members brought that point up in the meeting, but I
> apologize if we misunderstood your points.

This is why when you want to discuss the concerns raised,  you invite
both sides so that both sides are represented.  I am disappointed that
it hasn't happened. 

> C'mon, Rahul.  Don't go there.  I think you're making a gross
> mischaracterization if you think the Board is uninterested in the
> issues you raised.  The very fact that we we've discussed things on
> this list, then in a Board meeting, and had a lively debate about the
> pros and cons of your proposal, and then a formal vote shows that we
> do care about the issues you raised.  We might not agree completely
> with you views on the issue, but that doesn't mean we're uninterested.

I find my views misrepresented as evident above and I don't see how this
discussion address any of the points I mentioned. 

Rahul