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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.
> > Section seems to say something about this issue.  It doesn't
> > use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it
> > does use seems more than adequate.
> It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
> say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
> interpreted.

That's a strawman argument.

The ballot options are not being ignored.  Manoj is not leaving
them off the ballot.  The 3:1 supermajority issue is only relevant
for options which are not being ignored.

And Manoj is not changing the option.  The option in question
is making a statement about the DFSG.  It says " GNU Free
Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible
 with Debian Free Software Guidelines".  But until the option has been
accepted as a successful GR, the proposal is not something we
as a project have agreed to.

If it passes, then it will be true that this issue isn't a 3:1 supermajority
issue, but if it does not pass then this will not be true.

If it was true for us, without us having to vote on it, the this wouldn't
be an issue

> I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case,
> but it's his choice.

And that seems to be the right choice.

I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial
proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been
voted on.

> As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't
> think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received
> more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above "Further
> Discussion", and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want
> to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking
> each other.

I agree that voting on this issue is the best way to resolve it, and that
attacking each other is not a good way of resolving anything.


Reply to: