Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:25:54 +0100, Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es> said:
> * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
>> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
>> and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of
>> DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the
>> choices.
> Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's
> mail) is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's
> mail seems to want to attach a position statement to each option,
> and that can be divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a
> prior vote...
I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why
we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either
2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with
or without invariant sections, and a second one for position
statements --- or conflate them.
manoj
--
Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought to die.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: