Comment for Specification/ Definitions
|
Miriam Ballhausen <Ballhausen@...>
Hi Mark,
while re-organizing the specification into a certification document I took a closer look at the definitions. Is it possible that the definition for “FOSS Liaison” does not (at least not entirely) correspond with the way the term is used in the specification?
The definition reads:
FOSS Liaison - a designated person who is assigned to receive input from the FOSS community.
In 2.1 it then says:
Assign individual(s) responsible for receiving FOSS compliance inquiries
I understand that the FOSS Liaison’s job may cover more than just dealing with FOSS compliance inquiries. However, I find it unlikely that it is limited to just receiving input from the FOSS community, but then doesn’t cover giving feedback to the FOSS community.
Cheers, Miriam ______________________________________________________________ Dr. Miriam Ballhausen Rechtsanwältin
JBB Rechtsanwälte Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin Tel. +49.30.443 765 0 | Fax +49.30.443 765 22 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B
|
|
|
|
Kate Stewart
Hi Miriam, Mark, On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Miriam Ballhausen <Ballhausen@...> wrote:
That's a good point. Will adding "and reply to" to the definition and 2.1 address the point you raise? ie. Definition:FOSS Liaison - a designated person who is assigned to receive and reply to input from the FOSS community. For 2.1: Assign individual(s) responsible for receiving and replying to FOSS compliance inquiries Thanks, Kate
|
|
|
|
Miriam Ballhausen <Ballhausen@...>
Hi Kate,
That makes it better and more congruent, however, I am not sure, because the definition is limited to input from the FOSS community, whereas compliance inquiries might be brought by anyone and especially someone who might have any contact with any open source community. I personally see the FOSS Liaison as someone who is assigned to receive and reply any and all inquiries related to open source issues, especially compliance inquiries.
All the best, Miriam ______________________________________________________________ Dr. Miriam Ballhausen Rechtsanwältin
JBB Rechtsanwälte Jaschinski Biere Brexl Partnerschaft mbB Christinenstraße 18/19 | 10119 Berlin Tel. +49.30.443 765 0 | Fax +49.30.443 765 22 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Registergericht AG Charlottenburg | PR 609 B
Von: Kate Stewart [mailto:kstewart@...]
Hi Miriam, Mark,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Miriam Ballhausen <Ballhausen@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
while re-organizing the specification into a certification document I took a closer look at the definitions. Is it possible that the definition for “FOSS Liaison” does not (at least not entirely) correspond with the way the term is used in the specification?
The definition reads:
FOSS Liaison - a designated person who is assigned to receive input from the FOSS community.
In 2.1 it then says:
Assign individual(s) responsible for receiving FOSS compliance inquiries
I understand that the FOSS Liaison’s job may cover more than just dealing with FOSS compliance inquiries. However, I find it unlikely that it is limited to just receiving input from the FOSS community, but then doesn’t cover giving feedback to the FOSS community.
That's a good point.
Will adding "and reply to" to the definition and 2.1 address the point you raise?
ie. Definition:
Thanks, Kate
|
|
|
|
Dave Marr
Hi Miriam,
I may not be understanding the question but in case it's helpful would illustrate that:
The FOSS Liaison function and the FOSS compliance role can be the same person(s) but in some orgs they are different people. For example at Qualcomm they are different people but on the same team.
As to whether an edit should be made to add a reply function I initially thought Kate's proposed edit could address the concern but need to understand better how it doesn't. Also others may have caught what I missed.
Thanks,
Dave
On Jun 10, 2016, at 6:12 AM, Miriam Ballhausen <Ballhausen@...> wrote:
|
|
|