Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Con..

Christopher Martin · External Since: Sep 18, 2005 Posts: 167

On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> > prerogative.
>
> Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their
> "interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature
> of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote.

But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. The
Secretary does, because he or she can judge whether something is a matter
of interpretation or a modification. He/she therefore can arbitrarily
decide what constitutes a legimitate and an illegitimate interpretation of
the DFSG. Therefore, you willingly grant the Secretary the power to
interpret the DFSG. The developers can only interpret the DFSG within the
range allowed by the Secretary, or face the 3:1 obstacle.

And indeed, our current Secretary refuses to countenance the idea that the
GFDL being free is an acceptable interpretation. I happen to agree - I
believe that only without invariant sections is the GFDL Free - but I don't
think it's up to Manoj to tell us this, so I'm upset at the 3:1
requirement.

Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG,
since the DFSG is not the constitution.

Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections,
have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy
documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and
nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.

Christopher Martin

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Jérôme Marant writes:

> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> convinced they have been deceived.

Who, please?

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Jérôme Marant writes:

> Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
> like invariant sections but noone has ever battled for moving them
> to non-free. Then came GFDL and people suddenly decided to change
> the "de facto" rules. This is the kind of consistency I'm talking
> about (whether invariant sections should be allowed or not).

Debian was mostly unaware of the existence of these invariant
sections, and the problem had not been greatly discussed.

I was aware of it, but at the time I still believed that the GFDL
passed the DFSG.

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

md.DeleteThis@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> > accept non-free documentation into main.

>> How is this relevant?

> It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what "software" is
> in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not "editorial".

And how is this relevant? Please see the subject line.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

md.TakeThisOut@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
>> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
>> deceived.

> Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.

No, I do not agree. I have said nothing of the kind.

>> Were you "deceived" by the 2003 amendment?
> No, because the second time I received the ballot I had time to waste
> and spent it reading the proposed changes. But just by reading the
> subject I would have believed too that these were trivial changes, just
> like in the precedent GR.

Then why did you not alert people to the "deception"? Surely you
realized how dangerous it was, voted against it, and warned other
people of this "deception", right?

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Christopher Martin writes:

> But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> right.

Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.

> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG,
> since the DFSG is not the constitution.

I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to "a minor power...in
cases of deadlock." What it says is "adjudicates any disputes about
interpretation of the constitution."

> Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections,
> have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy
> documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
> the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and
> nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
> of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.

Right.

So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the
DFSG? If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote. If it doesn't, then
it doesn't. It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the
Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a
Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document.

Would a GR that said "Pine hereby passes the DFSG" be ok? How about
one that said "Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may
be added to the main Debian archive."? Neither of those explicitly
revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would
require a 3:1 vote. And removing the "Even though the DSG and the SC
say otherwise" cannot possibly affect the matter.

So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not
DFSG-compliant. And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare
it otherwise. If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to
say so. The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination;
he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning
percentage. There just isn't any other way.

If the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant, then a majority *cannot* declare it
so, because it would be reversing the DFSG itself (just as if it said
"notwithstanding the DFSG and the SC, pine is hereby allowed into
main").

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

md.RemoveThis@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

>> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
>> changes?"

> I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.

Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
deceived.

People who vote on the basis of subject lines and one-line
descriptions deserve whatever they get. I think, rather, that they
can be trusted to either take an interest or not, but if they choose
not to, then to honorably and decently say "oops, I guess I should pay
more attention in the future."

Were you "deceived" by the 2003 amendment?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Henrique de Moraes Holsch · External Since: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 719

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Eric Dorland wrote:
> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people

396 people voted.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Henrique de Moraes Holsch · External Since: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 719

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Option D (rescind the 2004-03 GR) didn't even reach the 3:1 quorum.

Sorry, I meat 3:1 majority requirement.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Raul Miller · External Since: May 06, 2005 Posts: 37

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG,
> since the DFSG is not the constitution.

"Repeatedly asserts"? I think, if you check my assertion, it included
a direct reference to the text of the constitution that I was referring
to.

If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could say specifically what it
is about what I wrote which conflicts with that part of the constitution?

Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part
of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation
being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis
for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right
to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote.

> Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections,
> have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy
> documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
> the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and
> nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
> of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.

Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the
developers follow when doing these things.

And we're following those procedures.

So where's the problem?

--
Raul

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Christopher Martin writes:

> On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Christopher Martin writes:
>> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
>> > right.
>>
>> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
>> that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
>
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG,
> not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make
> the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because
> of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her
> personal whim." That's obviously ludicrous.

So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim?

Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in
the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
majority to pass.

> Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an "out" for
> the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other
> delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the
> Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the
> useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG?

I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of
disagreement.

> Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_
> to be required when a resolution is put forth which
> contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document.
> The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide
> what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a
> clarification/interpretation of a foundation document?

I certainly haven't refused to address it.

The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a
proper ballot. It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job. It is
just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really
right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really
right. There is no "safe course"; he must make a judgment, and then
issue the correct ballot.

This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in
Debian requires it. For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package
whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do
so. They do not need to wait for a ballot; they do not have to defer
to the maintainer who uploaded it. It is their job to make this
determination in installing packages into the archive.

Likewise, I say, it is the Secretary's job to do so when preparing
ballots for voting.

> I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with
> extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from
> imposing them and makes a mess.

So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know.

>> So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not
>> DFSG-compliant.
>
> No, that is NOT the question.

If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare
that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of
the DFSG to that extent.

> Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional
> way, which happens to be by respecting the will and common sense of the
> developers. "The Secretary has no choice" is backwards. The Secretary does
> in fact have no choice, as you say, but it is not to impose his/her own
> view of the DFSG on everyone else, but to refrain from doing so. The
> Secretary is not some Prince of Reason appointed to guard the DFSG. That is
> not in the constitution.

If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority
requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the
amendment does not alter the DFSG.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Eric Dorland writes:

> If only 200 out of 1000 care enough to vote, then those are the people
> who get to make the decisions. We can't force developers to vote, so
> we can't be paralyzed into inaction by saying we can't do something
> because not enough people sent in a vote.

Actually, we can! We have a quorum requirement, and it was of course
satisfied. I notice that Marco has not suggested any amendments to
the Constitution to raise the quorum requirement. Smile

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Raul Miller · External Since: May 06, 2005 Posts: 37

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?

The constitution says:

"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."

I think that's pretty clear.

Also, you might want to read the references it lists.

I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his
powers in any way, shape or form.

--
Raul

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Steve Langasek writes:

> However, it *did* pass a simple majority. It doesn't benefit us as a
> project at all to have people making overly-broad claims about the
> significance of the previous votes. When I look at the relatively low
> turnout of 2004-03, the complaints since about its handling, and the fact
> that a vote to repeal 2004-03 received a simple majority among a larger body
> of voters, I find it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about
> project-wide opinions on this subject. *Would* a vote with fuller project
> participation overturn the Social Contract modifications? I can't say
> either way with any confidence. 2004-03 certainly wasn't the "mandate from
> the masses" that some people seem to want to claim it is.

I wouldn't claim it's a "mandate from the masses." Simply that we
followed our procedures, and this is the result.

We are now on the third time through this, and I'm sick of it. It's
time for people to stop trying to think up novel ways to reintroduce
yet again the same questions.

It is only goodwill that restrains me from introducing "remove
non-free" every year. Or heck, every six months. That goodwill
depends on other developers having similar restraint. It is
singularly unfair to rely on my goodwill while others are happy to
simply hammer away again and again at the same issue, hoping that
eventually they will get what they want.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Christopher Martin writes:

> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the
> 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.

The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else. The Constitution
never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either.

I didn't say he has the right to decide it for everyone else; I said
he has the right to decide it when required in the course of his
duties. For every single resolution, the Secretary must decide if it
is a modification of a Foundation Document, and if it is, require a
3:1 majority.

For him to require a simple majority would amount to a declaration
that the resolution does *not* modify the Foundation Document. He
cannot avoid making that determination.

> The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary
> overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with
> that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my
> complaint.

I didn't say I was confused (or if I did, I didn't mean it in this
way). I am perfectly clear about your complaint; I think it is
groundless however.

The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot; it his his determination
what correctness is in each and every case using the voting
procedure. For him to say "this requires a majority" requires him to
have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the
DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the
other.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Nick Phillips · External Since: Jan 13, 2005 Posts: 30

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in
> the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
> tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
> majority to pass.

> If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare
> that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of
> the DFSG to that extent.

Unfortunately things are not as clear-cut as you would like to claim.

You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.

Initially, we expect this determination to be made by individual
developers, as you have pointed out. Individuals' judgements may be
called into question by ftpmasters, who may ask debian-legal for
comments. If there is no consensus, then we have a vote. We have *no*
higher authority to determine the DFSG-compliance of a license than
such a vote. So your statement is meaningless.

The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.

I'll refrain from arguing about what might happen in the event of a
contradiction, as it's a pointless distraction at this juncture.

Cheers,

Nick

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Nick Phillips writes:

> You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
must make a determination as best as he can.

> The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.

No. This is incorrect. The developers surely have the right to
declare what the DFSG means; I have never challenged that.

However, this does not specify by what majority they must act. The
developers have the right to rescind the DFSG or close down the
Project if they want, but this does not mean that a mere majority is
sufficient to take those steps.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Christopher Martin writes:

>> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
>> > set or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret
>> > the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
>> > decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than
>> > for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the
>> > DFSG, at his or her personal whim." That's obviously ludicrous.
>>
>> So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim?
>
> It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but
> that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to
> do so, however carefully.

The phrase you used was "personal whim."

Whose judgment should he use instead?

He may interpret the Constitution to require that implicit
modifications of Foundation Documents require 3:1 just as explicit
ones do. This is hardly a radical stretch.

And, he must determine for every resolution whether it is a
modification of a Foundation Document. He cannot shirk this
responsibility; he must determine, and then issue the ballot.

If he issues a ballot that says "this requires a majority" when it
works a modification of a Foundation Document, then he has been remiss
in his duties. He has indeed then violated the Constitution. There
is no way for him to "not decide", which seems to be what you think he
should do.

> Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of
> the constitution.

Read the above, please.

> No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous
> posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their
> job to ensure a "proper ballot" if ensuring a proper ballot would require
> them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG
> interpretation.

The Constitution is silent on who interprets the DFSG. It follows
that it is the job of every developer in the course of their duties to
do so to the best of their ability. In no way have I suggested that
Manoj's interpretation of the DFSG should control ftpmaster, for
example. It controls his execution of his duties, and nothing more.
But also, nothing less.

Issuing the ballot with a majority requirement when, in his opinion,
the resolution effects a change to the DFSG, is a violation of the
Constitution.

> The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the
> Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their
> authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they
> decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus
> allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote).

It is however ultimately *their* determination. Yes, they should
attend to consensus. But they are not beholden to it.

I would note that Manoj explicitly requested comment here. He was
(and I presume, is) quite happy to receive people's opinions about the
proper form of the ballot.

> The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations,
> etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation
> that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting
> 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a
> 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon.

It is the *Constitution* which imposes the 3:1 requirement on changes
to the Foundation Documents. It is the Secretary's job to give effect
to that provision by creating correct ballots.

If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a
recission or modification of a Foundation Document. The text of the
DFSG shall remain intact just as is. The main Debian archive may now
include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute,
whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously
saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote?

> Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to
> interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves
> decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves.

How can he refuse? If he refuses to interpret it, then he cannot
assign the correct victory margin *AT ALL*. If he says "this requires
a majority" then that *is* a determination that the resolution does
not modify the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination.

> No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and
> prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of
> the proposal.

How can he say "because this does not change the DFSG, it requires a
majority" without making a judgment that it does not change the DFSG?

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Steve Langasek writes:

> Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard
> resolution procedure are inappropriate.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me because I was unclear.

I am not trying to suppress anything. I am concerned that the
procedure is being used abusively, and that at least some participants
in these discussions are being dishonorable.

We were told after the drop non-free resolution failed that it would
be abusive and unfair and illegitimate to proceed to reintroduce the
same topic over and over again. I don't know where that fear came
from, but there it was; some people were concerned that it would be
brought up again and again. I believe this is, in substance, what is
happening here.

> And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote
> on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was
> representative. Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about
> issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian,
> which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have
> their views represented as an option on the ballot.

This is quite a fair point, and thank you for it.

Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
long.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Glenn Maynard · External Since: May 22, 2005 Posts: 143

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
> long.

Before or after the next renaming of "creationism", I wonder?

--
Glenn Maynard

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org