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

Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement

> Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
> > I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
> > process to issue a position statement for something the project has
> > already decided on?

4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Together, the Developers may:
      5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 01:30:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I suppose the DPL delegate who could speak officially for the project here
> would be the ftpmasters; is there an official statement about this?

My understanding is that whether ftpmaster is a DPL delegated position
or not is also debatable. As per the security team, I'm trying to avoid
having an opinion. In any event, the DPL doesn't have any particular
right to make statements on behalf of the project anymore, afaics, and
I'm not sure delegates could in any case. Maintainers and delegates
can presumably make statements about their areas of responsibility,
but this is a project wide issue, as it affects things like the wiki
[0] as well as just the archive.

I note ftpmaster already gets accused of "imperial rules" and having a
"fortified post of Project power" [1] and other similar garbage, so I'm
disinclined to see the sense in leaving this sort of decision solely
to us. And if the decision's not up to us -- I assume I'm not mistaken
in thinking people would be upset if we decided GFDL docs were A-OK --
I don't see how it makes much sense to expect us alone to explain it.

> I believe the release team has decided that GFDL inclusion in main is RC for
> the etch release, 

The release team had pretty much decided that back in 2003 [2], but the
release team doesn't really get to decide what's appropriate for unstable
or experimental, let alone the wiki, web pages and whatever.

> but I'm not sure where I could find that statement
> either.  I suppose that might be sufficient.


Note the above is a consequence of the developers' decision to remove
non-free docs by way of changing the social contract; it's (that part of)
that decision that needs the explanation, IMO.

Maybe retitling it to "Why we do not consider the GNU Free Documentation
License free" or something would work better, though that seems more
likely to push people's buttons.


[0] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWikiIsNotGFDL
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00605.html
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20031004172513/http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: