Re: How to reratify the DFSG ?
I'm in favour of your preferred course of action. This allows us to
vote on the changes, while still giving you the ability to gracefully
merge possibly overlapping changes.
I do think that the intial "proposal" should be the DFSG as it is now,
unmodified. We've already ratified that, and it should remain the
> 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.
That you bring up this point tells me that you are not likely to
abuse this power :)
> 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.
The process of finding such a person would itself be controversial,
unless someone volunteers who clearly has the confidence of the
developers in general.
I fear that any trouble on this point will result in _several_ people
making DFSG-like proposals, which would be quite a mess.
> However, I'm not necessarily convinced that this would make it easy
> enough to get even essential and uncontroversial wording changes
I think it is overly optimistic to expect *any* change to the DFSG
to be uncontroversial.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com