Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <email@example.com> said:
>> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
>> >> itself?
>> > It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
>> > resolution.
>> Nope. The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the only
>> actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
>> groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r
>> to sgree to resolve to do whatever.
> But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
> non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
> how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
> of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
> available to voters.
You see me censoring the voting list or the archives?
> It's up to the proposer of a resolution and those who second the
> resolution to determine what is the content of the resolution. No
> one else has the power to determine that.
Again, you see any censorship going on?
>> The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the GPL. When you
>> derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble -- and you
>> modify and rename the rest to create your own license.
> The court is free to examine the preamble to the GPL if it so
> desires; it's appropriate to do so especially in cases where the
> language of the licence is not manifestly clear.
As are the voters. They can look at anything they want to --
Am I stopping them now?
>> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
>> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.
> They can be as much a part of a resolution as any other bit is.
> Indeed, a proposer needs to be capable of making a resolution
> contain anything they want to, from preambles to postambles to
> footnotes and graphics. It may not be particularly sane of them and
> those who second it to do so, but it's not the bailiwick of the
> Secretary to adjust the content of a duly seconded resolution.
Where did you see me adjusting contents? Not that I have
access to the mailing list filters anyway to do that.
> In the cases where what is the actual resolution is in doubt, the
> Secretary can of course make their best guess, but when the
> proposers and seconders inform the Secretary specifically what the
> resolution is, they control. [Of course, the Secretary can make
> suggestions and propose amendments, just like any other developer
> The most the Secretary can do is exert power under A.2.3 and declare
> that an amendment belongs on a separate ballot; but that's not
> (yet?) at issue here.
The secretary has to run the election, and decide on the
ballot. The ballot does not contain the various resolutions -- or
preambles, polstambles, forewords, afterwords, abstracts, opinions
po;;s, supporting documentation, or a whole sleew of stuff the voters
need to make an informed decision.
The mailing list archives are, after all, open to everyone.
We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. Dwight
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C