Re: Political policymaking
The main objection to my proposal at the moment is the claim that it
is (too) heavyweight.
One reason it looks heavyweight when laid out as a set of rules is
that it cover all the possible paths through the procedure, rather
than what would actually happen in any particular case.
Well-written and well-thought-out rules are quick and clear to use in
practice, but complete and unambigious in their content and
If we look at how the procedure would probably have worked if it had
been in place when the DFSG were agreed things probably seem a lot
The sequence of events would have been very similar - there was
discussion, during which someone (Bruce, in this case) wrote up a
proposal which was discussed some more and then voted on.
The main difference would have been that probably one or two
amendments might have made it into the final vote. We would have had
the opportunity to say whether we wanted to water the DFSG down or
About the only other difference is that under my scheme seconders
would have had to mail the proposer of motions/amendments, CC the
chairman, to say they supported it. This hardly seems like an onerous
burden - and in fact I'm pretty sure that such emails changed hands
anyway, so all that would be required is an extra sentence making it a
formal second and a CC to the chairman.
In return for this small amount of extra work Bruce would now be able
to turn round to me and say `the developers voted against you' rather
than `IMO the developers disagreed with you', and I would shut up
about it - or alternatively Bruce would have been shown politely that
we disagreed, without us having to vote down the whole DFSG and cause
The free software zealots would be able to say to the unconverted
`weakening the DFSG was overwhelmingly rejected in a vote' and we
wouldn't have to have that debate again and again.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .