[Detaching this discussion from -devel because it is not terribly on topic there.] On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote: > On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote: > > > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make > > > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views > > > the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no > > > way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension > > > of the DFSG. > > > > The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we > > can decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we > > want simply by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to > > them meet a 3:1 majority becomes rather pointless. > > The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has > the authority to determine these matters of interpretation? The Secretary has the authority to adjudicate constitutional disputes of interpretation under §7.1.2.[1] Since modifying the Foundation Documents requires a modification to the constitution, it seems reasonable that the secretary would adjudicate whether a particular GR would require such a modification to remain consistent. > Given the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number > of developers who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too > strong a stance for a Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds > that view personally). Hence my complaint. A stance has to be made one way or the other; either way involves a personal weighing of whether the acceptance of a particular license as acceptable in main violates the DFSG itself; either decision will cause some to be unhappy. Indeed, the very fact that we've had 2 previous GRs on this very issue which required a modification of the DFSG to do so seems to indicate that the project has decided on multiple occasions that 3:1 majorities were required to deal with the current version of the GFDL. Don Armstrong 1: Odly enough, it's not clear that the developers can override a decision that the Secretary has made,[2] although I'd be surprised if a Secretary would fail to heed a clear overriding vote. 2: Well, by some other manner than electing a DPL who will fail to reappoint the secretary and then revisiting the decision... -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature