Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
On 28 Feb 2006, Oliver Elphick outgrape:
> On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to
>> address the Debian project's position on the GNU Free Documentation
>> License. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy
>> delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the
>> Debian Constitution.
>
> Part of the description of choice 3 is
>
> Majority Requirement
> Amendment B requires a 3:1 majority, since it require
> modifications to the Social contract, or the DFSG, both
> foundation documents.
>
> This makes no sense because the text of the modifications is not
> given. How can it be said that an amendment is modifying either
> document if there is no text included to accomplish that?
I have made clear what the disconnect between the amendment
and the actual text of the foundation document is, in my opinion.
> If this option is adopted, what will the text of the change be?
> Note that this speaks of modification to the Social Contract OR the
> DFSG. Which one is it? If the Secretary cannot specify that, how
> can it be said that there is any modification at all?
>
While I have an opinion on this, I did not feel lile I should
bind the project t what I think the changes should be. Once the
amendment is adopted, the wording can be worked out to ensure that
the position statement and the foundation documents are not
contradictory -- for starters, include the GFDL as one of the
accepted free documents in the SC, and clarify the DFSG stattement
"Licence shall allow modifications" to reflect whatever it is that
the proponents of the amendment thinks it says.
> If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
> proper description of what is happening can only be that this
> proposal adds a new foundation document.
I am not sure that follows.
> the ballot is incoherent and invalid because it claims that this
> proposal is modifying a foundation document while not specifying
> how it is doing so or the actual text of the change;
Incoherent? Incomplete, perhaps. But the amendment lays out
what the foundation documents should be saying is free, and at the
very least must be clarified to say that clearly, so that people like
me do not misunderstand the foundation documents.
> or
>
> the requirement of a supermajority for choice 3 is invalid.
manoj
--
It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: