Walter Landry wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: > >>Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >>>Josh Triplett writes: >>> >>>>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a >>>>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" >>>>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list >>>>of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG >>>>cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus >>>>interpretations about a license are valid. >>> >>>pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting >>>interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's >>>the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. >> >>I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the >>ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a >>GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I >>suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it >>would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a >>GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. > > Debian-legal is a mailing list. That is it. The people with real > power (ftp-master, RM, etc.) can decide to ignore debian-legal or not. > I understand that ftp-master generally goes by debian-legal consensus, > but they don't have to. The former RM (Anthony Towns) recently did > not (and caused quite an uproar because of it). Good point. So whatever method we use would be solely for the purposes of making consensus clear to the decision-makers, and the project as a whole would not be appealing our consensus, but the decisions based on that consensus, which they can already do. Nevertheless, I still believe the "Guidelines" approach should be spelled out explicitly, to avoid further issues with people stating that complaints not specifically following from a DFSG point are not relevant. Freeness cannot be reduced to a checklist, and we need to make that clear. >>Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a >>more formal process), and it seems to work fine. >> >>As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an >>issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to >>debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want >>single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational >>discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a >>formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the >>process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors >>would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. > > It would be interesting to see how many of these "single-shot opinion > mails from people uninterested in rational discussion" come from DD's > and how many come from third parties. In the three years I've been > posting here, I've certainly seen plenty from both camps. :) Certainly true. In this case, I was more thinking of the effect in a more formal process of "stuffing the ballot box", by getting many different people to send a mail "voting" in the process without actually considering the issue. However, given what you mention above, I don't think such a formal process is necessary. > In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be > misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french > localization list came up with a french style guide without > "consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called > "French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style > guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are > interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal. I strongly agree. debian-legal is an open list, after all. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature