On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While I would be happy (of course) to discuss what broader scope you think
> would be
> preferable, the first question is whether there is community support for
> this narrow scope.
I'm am suggesting that the same discretion that you propose giving, is
extended to any documentation that meets the stated requirements. I
fail to see how open source software is worthy of special treatment.
It's all words. What matters are the questions you are addressing -
necessity, stability, etc...
Ah - there is nothing in the document that talks about open-source! It is
simply about referencing external non-SDO items. I agree that there is no
reason to special case open source software - though it can fall in an interesting
gap between proprietary standards and open standards discussed in RFC 2026.
Because the draft is a policy draft (and thus, strangely, dry to many readers),
I am trying to clarify that the motivations for this draft at this time are around
the challenges with mutual building with open source.
Regards,
Alia