Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> > prerogative.
>
> Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their
> "interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature
> of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote.
But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. The
Secretary does, because he or she can judge whether something is a matter
of interpretation or a modification. He/she therefore can arbitrarily
decide what constitutes a legimitate and an illegitimate interpretation of
the DFSG. Therefore, you willingly grant the Secretary the power to
interpret the DFSG. The developers can only interpret the DFSG within the
range allowed by the Secretary, or face the 3:1 obstacle.
And indeed, our current Secretary refuses to countenance the idea that the
GFDL being free is an acceptable interpretation. I happen to agree - I
believe that only without invariant sections is the GFDL Free - but I don't
think it's up to Manoj to tell us this, so I'm upset at the 3:1
requirement.
Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG,
since the DFSG is not the constitution.
Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections,
have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy
documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and
nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.
Christopher Martin
Reply to: