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

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:16:45PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> > [   ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1]

> I need to correct this.  The title for my proposal is

> [   ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the current DFSG

> First, the whole text of my proposal talks entirely about the current

> Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
> release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main.  If my proposal
> wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision

Frankly, I have no idea what the release team is expected to do in this
circumstance.  In spite of the Project Secretary's determination that this
ballot option requires a 3:1 supermajority because it modifies the DFSG,
given that I can't reconcile these claims that the GFDL always complies with
the DFSG with any (IMHO) reasonable reading of the DFSG themselves, I am
left without a suitable consistent interpretation that I can apply in the
exercise of my own duties.

I guess I could:

- ignore that the Project seems to have gone insane and issued a
  position statement that I can't grok, and continue treating GFDL works as
  RC for etch
- ignore the Project Secretary's interpretation that this amendment
  implicitly modifies the DFSG, and continue treating GFDL works as RC for
- accept that I don't understand how the Project as a whole interprets the
  DFSG, and defer to either the Technical Committee or the FTP Team
  regarding the RC-ness of all licensing bugs
- start a new GR
- resign and let somebody else deal with it
- have an existential crisis

Of course, 1 and 2 are pretty monomaniacal options and likely to piss off
anyone who voted for the GR, eventually leading me to 5 or 6; 3 sounds
pretty unsustainable, and likely to lead directly to 6 and then to 5 anyway
over my inability to understand how people think; and 4 is a bunch of crap
work that I really have no desire to do because it's a ridiculous side show
to the work of actually building a free operating system... so might result
in me defaulting to 5.

The ambiguity of this ballot option, both in not actually proposing text
modifications to the DFSG proper and in advancing a partial, one-off
interpretation of the DFSG which does not provide any real guidance on the
question of what limits on modification *are* acceptable to Debian, are
IMHO a serious problem.  Not only will I be voting this option below
"None of the above" (which, apparently unlike Anthony[1], I believe to be
the normal and proper thing to do with a ballot option I consider
unacceptable even if I don't really want to *discuss* it further), I will
be fervently hoping that this option doesn't win.  Of course, if people
actually believe that this ballot option is *true*, they should naturally
still vote for it -- I just have no idea what it means for someone to
believe it's true, and would much prefer a ballot option that advanced a
consistent interpretation of the DFSG.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00415.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: