| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I think it is an entirely reasonable position to do the following: |
| 4 |
> - Not accept the SEI notices because we do not understand the grounds on |
| 5 |
> which they are added. |
| 6 |
> - Ask SEI for a rationale for what the notices are meant to convey, so we |
| 7 |
> can decide if we can support whatever that use case is; maybe its something |
| 8 |
> we didn't consider in the GLEP. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Hm, shall we make this an agenda item for the next Council meeting? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I don't think its reasonable to say they are mean shitheads; because the |
| 13 |
> fact is we don't know what they want to accomplish with the notices. |
| 14 |
> My concern is that they may later provide a reasonable use case for the |
| 15 |
> notices and the council will just say 'well that use case is stupid because |
| 16 |
> Sony is stupid'; because that is the message many members of the council |
| 17 |
> are currently communicating. Why would Sony even bother if the narrative is |
| 18 |
> the Council won't listen anyway? It looks like a waste of their time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In the first place, they should have raised their concerns while GLEP 76 |
| 21 |
was in the making, not after it went through the approval process with |
| 22 |
Council and Trustees. Our proposed policy was posted on the mailing list |
| 23 |
for review, even with several iterations. Plus, they were happy with a |
| 24 |
single line notice before, so not accepting it any longer looks like an |
| 25 |
arbitrary move. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> I think the above proposal puts the ball clearly in SEI's court; if they |
| 28 |
> want the notices accepted they can provide a memo detailing why. If they |
| 29 |
> don't care, they can drop the notices or stop committing. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
+1 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ulrich |
Archives