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

Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>(vote "further discussion" because I'm grumpy about the endless
> arguments

Voting NOTA because of endless arguments seems counter productive...
but I recognize some people are frustrated with the number of options
that have come out of this particular GR frenzy.

> Remembering what happened after the supposedly no-op GR 2004/003,

The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it quite
clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all
works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously discussed on
-vote at the time, with AJ (then the RM) heavily involved.[1] It was a
large number of people's understanding that this was what the SC
originally intended, but this view was not universally held, which was
why the GR was necessary.

> I'm tempted to follow the path having the least danger of adverse
> reactions from others, and therefore to vote "further discussion"
> since a yes vote and a further discussion vote, IMO, are logically
> equivalent. Jacobo Tarrío Barreiro sums up my feelings perfectly:
> http://raw-output.org/20061002/status-quo-ante-bellum Do you have an
> argument to persuade me otherwise?

The adverse reactions that this GR seems to be causing indicates to me
that the status quo is not universally held; by nailing down what DFSG
§2 says and means, we can concentrate on providing the correct set of
exceptions for etch so that we can release on time. Otherwise, it is
not entirely clear to all participants which works require exceptions,
or if they are even required at all. Needless nebulosity[2] about what
DFSG §2 requires is what keeps these massive arguments around, and
what has put us into a situtation where we have to look at granting

Don Armstrong

1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/01/msg01307.html
   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/01/msg01386.html et al.

2: It's interesting that one of the objections to this GR doesn't even
seem to recognize that the GR resolves precisely the source question
even for fonts and videos; namely that source isn't required, but
strongly recommended. It even addresses the nature of the source that
should be provided (or must, in the case of programmatic works.)
"People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug
trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
 -- John Brown, DEA Chief

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: