Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> said:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <vorlon@debian.org> said:
>> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
>> >> itself?
>>
>> > It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
>> > resolution.
>>
>> Nope. The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the only
>> actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
>> groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r
>> to sgree to resolve to do whatever.
> But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
> non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
> how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
> of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
> available to voters.
You see me censoring the voting list or the archives?
> It's up to the proposer of a resolution and those who second the
> resolution to determine what is the content of the resolution. No
> one else has the power to determine that.
Again, you see any censorship going on?
>> The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the GPL. When you
>> derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble -- and you
>> modify and rename the rest to create your own license.
> The court is free to examine the preamble to the GPL if it so
> desires; it's appropriate to do so especially in cases where the
> language of the licence is not manifestly clear.
As are the voters. They can look at anything they want to --
Am I stopping them now?
>> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
>> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.
> They can be as much a part of a resolution as any other bit is.
> Indeed, a proposer needs to be capable of making a resolution
> contain anything they want to, from preambles to postambles to
> footnotes and graphics. It may not be particularly sane of them and
> those who second it to do so, but it's not the bailiwick of the
> Secretary to adjust the content of a duly seconded resolution.
Where did you see me adjusting contents? Not that I have
access to the mailing list filters anyway to do that.
> In the cases where what is the actual resolution is in doubt, the
> Secretary can of course make their best guess, but when the
> proposers and seconders inform the Secretary specifically what the
> resolution is, they control. [Of course, the Secretary can make
> suggestions and propose amendments, just like any other developer
> can.]
> The most the Secretary can do is exert power under A.2.3 and declare
> that an amendment belongs on a separate ballot; but that's not
> (yet?) at issue here.
The secretary has to run the election, and decide on the
ballot. The ballot does not contain the various resolutions -- or
preambles, polstambles, forewords, afterwords, abstracts, opinions
po;;s, supporting documentation, or a whole sleew of stuff the voters
need to make an informed decision.
The mailing list archives are, after all, open to everyone.
manoj
--
We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. Dwight
D. Eisenhower
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: