On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Adeodato Sim? <dato@net.com.org.es> writes: > > * 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... > Me too. The question raised by the original proposal here seems to be > more one of whether we want to make a public policy statement about an > issue already decided by delegates. I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that "GFDL is non-free" is a "delegate's decision", I don't think it makes any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of why at the same time. Removing GFDL documents from main has been Debian's intention for many years now -- whether as semi-official future release policy, as a scheduled change to the social contract, or as an explicit policy from the release team; if we're changing that, we definitely need to explain why, not just leave it unexplained for another month. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature