[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

How to reratify the DFSG ?

I'd like the opinions of the developers regarding a conflict of
interest I think I have.

We need to ratify the DFSG according to the soon-to-be-inplace
constitutional mechanism.

However, I personally have at least one outstanding issue with the
DFSG that I'd like to see changed - the `patches only' exception in
para.4.  There are also a number of other issues that need to be
resolved.  In particular, the status of standards and documentation in
general needs to be sorted out.

Furthermore, I think the DFSG isn't very well-worded in general - it
seems to have a couple of rather specific points where general rules
would be better.  For example, it says there must be `no
discrimination against fields of endeavour'; surely it should say that
no restrictions are allowed except ones that it should list.

So, I have a wide spectrum of choices.  Naturally I could push my own
agenda (and, being a zealot I think this would be the Right Thing, of
course).  The leadership role has a lot of ability to control the text
of documents, especially if the document is proposed by the leader.

An alternative is that where contentious changes are made I could fail
to accept my own amendments, thus allowing them to be voted on.  We
could even have an `old version vs. new version' vote.  This is
probably my preferred course of action.  It would allow me to write
the text in a way that I feel is clear and correct, but allow the
developers to decide on the meaning.

At the other end of the scale, I could delegate the whole job of
ratifying the DFSG to someone who strongly agrees with the current
meaning and wording and place myself in the position of a developer.
However, I'm not necessarily convinced that this would make it easy
enough to get even essential and uncontroversial wording changes

So, what do people thing ?


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: