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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:45 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         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.

Those in favour of two separate GR's:

      * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
      * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
        needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an
        officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest
        others do too (again, your choice or course).
      * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I
        will consider seconding them as well.
      * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say
        in the position statement (or choose to say nothing).

(*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure.

Those in favour of a single GR regarding both the freeness of GNU FDL
and a public statement about it:

      * Read Manoj's list of possible combinations [3].
      * Rework my proposal [0] into alternative B and propose it as an
        amendment. I will second it. I will consider doing this myself
        later if there is not enough support for two separate GRs.
      * Propose amendments for alternatives A, C and F in Manoj's list.
        I will consider seconding them.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00209.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00254.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00173.html

Finally, a reminder:

Proposing a GR or an amendment, or seconding an amendment, is not the
same as stating your opinion. Your opinion will be asked for when it's
time to vote. At this time, the question is about having the right
options on the ballot, even options that very few or nobody on this list
speak for.

Why? Because even if nobody likes it now, there might be a time in the
future, perhaps when we have all retired from Debian, that someone asks
why that option wasn't considered. Having all these options on the
ballot will show that we explicitly chose option X over all the other
options. If the Debian of the future wants to open up that issue again,
then let it be because they really want to revisit the core issue -- not
because of a technicality such as a missing option.

Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: