Russell Nelson wrote:

>Wrong committee, Bruce!  Replies set to
>    license-proliferation-discuss <at> opensource.org
>  
>
Some of the folks I consulted felt that this issue should be brought to
license-discuss and broad public participation, rather than a small and
limited list.

>it doesn't matter who writes the law, as long as the law treats everyone equally.
>  
>
You are allowing the "Angry Economist" to get mixed up with your role in
OSI again. He's burned you before.

It's simply not in the nature of human beings to be perfect rulers.
Thus, people ask for representative systems in order to arrive at a
distribution of interest that approximates fairness and a visibility of
process so that they can know that the approximation of fairness remains
in place.

>Do you feel treated unfairly?
>
I feel it's unfair to everyone, not just me, to keep my expertise off of
the committee. That's why I stated my case.

>Does OSI fail to balance your interests and concerns with those of others?
>
There isn't enough visibility to the process for me to be able to tell.
That is a failure of the process that again is unfair to everyone.

>Have we made mistakes that we didn't rectify?
>
You're serious. Uh, must we go into the litany?

>Do we reflect a bias against the range of opinions you feel you would represent if you were on the committee?
>  
>
I would bring an increase in the quality of opinion available to the
group. This is a separate issue from equality of representation,
although yes I do have questions about that too.

>Rather than judging the process, you should judge the result.  Since there are no results yet, you have
nothing to say anything about.
>  
>
You are asking us to trust the process and wait without giving us any
reason to trust the process.

    Thanks

    Bruce