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


On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:54:33AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> > Here's what I have in mind:
> > http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/licenses/cddl/summary.html
> It looks a comprehensive minute apart from repeated points, but
> some of the stock language needs a tune-up (Who cares whether the
> licence is DFSG-free?  We package software not licences!)

Yeah, half of it is still just exposing the data structures anyway. I
threw most of the text together in a hurry. Can't make up my mind
whether to write in more accurate text or just use an arbitrary name
and link to a description.

> and you
> already plan to work on the presentation. I think the biggest
> improvements would be to replace message-id on the index with
> a format like local_part.MMDD.HH:MM (so henning.0909.14:51 is
> the first)

That's actually more data than I currently store. I'll have to think
of a more sensible way of collecting it. Getting those list archive
URLs is really fucking hard.

> and to use a dl instead of a ul for the first level.

Bah, I'd have to expand my html repertoire beyond half a dozen tags.

> In general, I'm impressed and the idea could be used in a lot
> of places to avoid sending everyone to wade through tons of
> verbose mail. Will the mail-minute-maker scripts be released?

Probably next weekend, I need to defuck a bunch of stuff first. It's
highly specific to -legal though. I haven't given much thought to how
the logic could be restructured for other kinds of debate; notably
this assumes that the only things worth talking about are "Yes, this
license permits each of the things required by a free license", "No,
this license includes a non-free restriction", and rebuttals to points
(a license is free if it permits all the stuff on the list and doesn't
have any valid objections; a point is valid if it has no replies, or
if it has no valid rebuttals).

I suppose it could run in a degraded mode without any logic to
summarise the (current) conclusion, just showing the argument
structure. You'd lose the ability to see which points are still
important though; a big part of this is that as threads get killed
off, they disappear to the 'invalid' chunk at the bottom of the list,
so you can just look at the outstanding issues. I expect that any
significantly large thread on -legal will generate lots of dead
arguments, which is kinda the point.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: