Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Why does that matter? I am only one voice.
> I wrote my proposal in such a way as to attempt to be completely neutral
> about whether grandfathering might take place, or what might be
> If you find any indications of bias in it on the issue of
> grandfathering, please let me know so I can make appropriate revisions.
See, here's the problem.
You make a proposal with very hard bright-line tests. When people say
"that's too strict, what about special cases", you say "oh, these are
just *guidelines*; we can still grandfather things or make special
cases". But then you refuse to say how any of that will work.
What I'm afraid of is that your talk about grandfathering and special
exceptions is just so much noise designed to distract from an
important objection to your proposal. If it's not noise, then
please--give some content to it!
I'm afraid that if we agree to such a proposal with no explicit
thoughts about grandfathering and exception-making, then some people
(probably including you) will begin objecting to each and every
proposed exception and grandfathering, in the name of "the agreed
What can you say to tell me that won't happen? You aren't willing to
point to any existing manual and say "I would support grandfathering
that one"; you aren't willing to say "this is the kind of
exception-granting process I would be happy with".