Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> >[...]
> As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
> we do this?
One thing is to modify the standard templates used for questions. Include
more licenses to critique, all of which are picked to display certain points. I
don't know that many licenses so I can't suggest any in particular right now,
but a more focused portion of Policy & Procedures would be good. As it is, I
see the Policy & Procedures overlapping quite a bit with Tasks & Skills as they
currently stand, so some separation would provide the necessary room in the
tests.
> >2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying [...]
>
> I agree with others that this is dangerous and likely to weaken the
> guidelines in nearly all cases.
This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up trouble in
saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening? As Matthew Garret
pointed out in another email, current interpretation of freedom is more
restrictive than that of the FSF, and I echo his point that this probably
needs to be justified.
> >3) As I stated earlier, I liked the news post to DWN. Keep those up
> >[...]
>
> DWN is too difficult/demoralising for me and I'm used to rejections
> from real news mags. "bad news" like the premature MPL draft summary
> are included quickly, while -legal successes like the LPPL aren't
> reported. It's all well and good inviting contributions, but I don't
> even know whether my contributions got there or whether I should
> resend. There's easier stuff to do than spend time shouting into a
> black hole.
That's disheartening. Have you spoken with Joey on the subject at all?
> >4) Announce major changes to things to -devel-announce. [...]
>
> This is a better idea, if summarisers are willing.
>
> >If a major license is declared as non-free, [...]
>
> Ewww ;-)
Hehe
> >If you don't
> >like this and would rather rant and talk in circles [...]
>
> Please refrain from false alternatives. We can dislike your
> suggestions and still not prefer to rant.
I'm sorry, but it's been a frustrating task trying to communicate with this
list. I'm afraid I haven't done as good a job as I'd like, but I very much
appreciate having your ear.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: