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

Re: procedural issues [OT]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:30:28AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > Just because I'd be fine with it (until convinced otherwise by
> > cogent arguments as removability being an imperfect but acceptable
> > solution, much like, oh, the clause under which TeX slips through)
> > doesn't mean that the majority opinion of d-l is; and if I'm in a
> > significant minority, there comes a time to, as they say, "shut up
> > and deal with it".
> Just as a procedural note, debian-legal is advisory in character.  So
> it is not a "majority rules" thing, but a "whoever has the argument
> that convinces the ftpmasters/release manager/etc".  These arguments
> are formulated, refined, and tested by discussing them on this list,
> and using them to convince others on this list.  In this process, we
> hope to get all the issues out on the table, and make sure we're not
> neglecting any problems.  Often one point of view is so convincing
> that essentially everyone is swayed to it, or at least everyone able
> to formulate and express a cogent and consistent train of logic.  When
> a "survey" is done on the list, it is for the purpose of checking
> whether some point of view has actually convinced essentially
> everyone, including people not actively involved in the discussion
> itself.

I see no conflict between these statements. As has been amply proven by
the responses of certain maintainers on the GFDL issue, people who want
the advice of d-l (or, more often, want to use the opinions as a factor
in convincing someone else to take a given action), need a solid opinion
that appears to have the weight of the majority (or, in fact, something
well beyond a super-majority, before some folks will act) behind it.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgphsPJ4qYopR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: