Notices by Richard Fontana (richardfontana@mastodon.social)

@bkuhn It's the name for your time and place.

gnu.org appears to be down?

@bkuhn isn't that because ſ is only lowercase? @neal @jbqueru

@bkuhn Indeed, among other things small caps has a standard use in legal scholarship journals adhering to the #problematic Bluebook format (I forget what offhand but titles of books are one example) @neal @jbqueru

@cwebber Cf.: https://spdx.org/licenses/any-OSI.html

@mattl not sure if this counts but I owned grapejuice.plus for a while

@almalinux not sure if that's implying that RHEL has a "commercial license agreement" but that's not the case (except in the sense that Alma too can be said to be commercially licensed) 🤓

@benny it's not specific to Alma, I find it frustrating when people, including unfortunately some Red Hatters, speak of "RHEL licenses" when they mean RHEL subscriptions

Speaking for myself, I actually agreed to the controversial 19-word clause but submitted an addendum providing a clarification on what I think it ought to mean (preserving a right of OSI board directors to publicly dissent on matters of public interest) @hackygolucky @bkuhn

2. @hackygolucky is quoted saying @bkuhn & I "refused to sign the board agreement Code of Conduct"; however as previously noted the board agreement isn't itself denominated a "board agreement Code of Conduct". We each submitted modified versions of the 2-page agreement in which we agreed to all but one 19-word clause which was the subject of a reform platform plank. The board agreement refers to a separate OSI Code of Conduct which we each explicitly agreed to in those modified versions.

A couple of issues with @sjvn's article on the #OSI board elections:
1. "This board agreement has existed for five years in its current form, but it is the first time that candidates decided to run while publicly communicating they would not sign it". I never communicated that I wouldn't sign the board agreement (I don't think @bkuhn did either). As I have said elsewhere, at the outset of the vote I assumed I'd sign it if invited to join the board following publication of vote results. (cont.)

Also Thierry Carrez is quoted as saying "It's the first time that we had candidates running that would not sign the board agreement". First, again at the outset of voting I considered myself likely to sign the board agreement. Second, OSI doesn't know that because OSI never required mere *candidates* to sign the board agreement before AFAIK @hackygolucky @bkuhn

Also, @sjvn I think your article missed the most important occurrence here which is that the OSI conducted a vote but is refusing to publish the full results.

@FRYTG It was understood by candidates prior to the vote that any person invited to join the board (presumably after being declared the winner of their election) would have to sign the board member agreement. Right after the vote concluded, and before announcing any election results, the OSI unexpectedly requested that all candidates sign the board member agreement within 47 hours. (2/n)

@FRYTG OSI held elections among its Affiliate Members and Individual Members for vacancies on its board. One Affiliate representative candidate and one
Individual Member candidate (disclosure: me) ran on a 4-plank "reform" platform, one plank of which called for OSI to repeal the controversial Open Source AI Definition (the subject of major focus by OSI over the past year or two) and another plank of which called for replacement of 19 words in the 2-page standard board member agreement. (1/n)

@FRYTG The two candidates who supported the reform platform each submitted a slightly revised version of the board agreement before the deadline (their revisions related to the 19 words their platform raised concerns about). A third candidate apparently did not learn about the request in time to submit the agreement. (3/n)

@FRYTG OSI subsequently published detailed Scottish STV election results but excluded these three candidates from the election calculation and has thus far refused to publish complete anonymized election data including any votes received by the excluded candidates. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that at least one of the two reform candidates had the highest number of raw votes for their specific election. (4/4)

@bkuhn @downey in fairness to Gollum I don't think he was aware of the existence of the other Rings of Power

@bkuhn Just skimmed "The Shadow of the Past" chapter. Gandalf seems to imply that knowledge about the Rings of Power at that point was pretty much limited to 'the Wise' (him, Saruman, and the more clued-in Elves, basically)

@bkuhn Gandalf told Frodo about the other rings, the first time in a conversation that Sam famously eavesdropped on. But at that time Gollum presumably wasn't nearby (he doesn't seem to have been in proximity to Frodo and Sam until they get to Moria). It's possible he picked info on this from them or others at later times, but it seems a little unlikely to me. Maybe lore about the Rings of Power was more widely known?Regarding Second Breakfast though, that makes me think of coffee ∀ 😀