Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)"):
> Would the following ballot be a better fit ?
> ==
> C: Decline to rule on #830978 'Browserified javascript and DFSG 2'
> FD: Further Discussion
> ==

I think this would be an extremely unsatisfactory outcome.

Once again, we have a situation of ongoing disagreement.  It runs on
and on.  The people involved are trying to properly escalate the
situation.  If the TC produces this unrationalised dismissal, the
dispute will continue to rumble on.

It must also be very frustrating for the petitioners that the
decisionmaking process is deflecting their arguments, and not engaging
properly even to state disagreement.  The point about Perl's Configure
is very well made.

Personally I actually disagree with the petitioners as to the right
action to take, but I think they are entitled to a proper resolution
of their complaint.

I think the TC has many reasonable options.

 * You could say that you think you aren't authorised, by the
   constitution, to overrule a decision on DFSG-ness, and invite the
   petitioners to consider a GR.

 * You could say whether or not you actually agree with the
   petitioners about the DFSG-freenees of the browswerified JS.  If
   your decision is that the JS is non-free then you should explicitly
   express some opinion about the situation with Perl's Configure.

 * If you agree with the petitioners and think you are
   constitutionally authorised, you could resolve to overrule.  I
   doubt anyone would gainsay the TC, other than by GR.  If you agree
   with the petitioners and don't think you are constitutionally
   authorised, you could issue advice.

 * With respect to Perl's Configure, one possible answer that has not
   been considered is to declare that you agree that there is a
   software freedom problem, but to distinguish the proper action with
   respect to Configure on the basis of several possible factors.  For
   example, one might argue that an exception should be made in the
   same way as we have collectively previously made exceptions for
   certain freedom problems; or that while the Perl situation is a
   problem, people agree that it should be fixed, and that it does not
   justify introducing new problems; or whatever.

 * If you feel that the issue isn't ripe because ftpmaster haven't
   formally made a decision, then TC members should explicitly invite
   ftpmaster to provide a decision (and there should be a deadline
   set).  I agree with the complaint that this point, as taken so far
   by members of the TC, is overly bureaucratic.

If the TC can't get consensus on any particular form of words, then
the right answer is not to try to gain consensus on dismissing the
petitioner with no explanation.

Instead, if there is not consensus on the various questions raised by
the petitioner, the TC should vote on various suitable options.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.