# We heard you: let's focus on substantive discussion

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Created:** [September 24, 2024, 2:49pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589 "2024-09-24T14:49:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 19

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/f6c823/32.png) [@zack](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/zack)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2024, 7:30pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589/19 "2024-09-25T19:30:41Z")

</div>

If my votes for making training data required for exercising the freedom of study and modify made things _worse_ for those outcomes than me not voting or voting something else (I’m taking your word for it, as I didn’t have time to check how you came to that conclusion), then I agree the chosen voting system was nonsense.

I still think the voting discussion is mostly a distraction.

But I’d appreciate it if OSI would not claim that the resulting decision on this important point is based on working group consensus, because I don’t think there ever was one. I had already argued this point in the past. Your voting analysis, if correct, would just strengthen my preexisting belief on the matter.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589)._