Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 04:28:41AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> 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.
Having just recently come into the world of AMship, I agree with your
observation regarding the overlap of some portions of T&S with P&P -- some
of the questions in T&S should probably be in P&P instead, but that won't
free up space in T&S for licence analysis -- that's in P&P (to some degree)
already.
For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting
applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis. We have d-legal for
this purpose just so maintainers don't have to be licence experts. The
question about Pine licencing is a pretty good test of basic DFSG analytical
ability.
> > >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.
An interesting point of view. Be prepared for some brutal attacks for such
a suggestion.
- Matt
Reply to: