Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> 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