On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:36:19AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > > A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is > > wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision, > > and issue the following statement "..." > > B) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free > > does not hold for works without invariant sections, modify the > > delegated decision to allow works with no invariant sections in > > main, and issue the following statement "..." > I fail to see why these positions don't require 3:1 supermajority. As > currently, no sane interpretation of the DFSG can lead to such > statements, especially for A), we would have to modify the DFSG to fit > the requirement. Because the constitution does not specify a standard for sanity or rationality. It may be *irrational* for the project to claim that the GFDL with invariant sections meets the DFSG's requirements, and the passing of such a GR might leave me with no confidence whatsoever in the judgement of this project, but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1 supermajority requirement. Indeed, if 50% of voting developers are sufficiently out of their minds (or sloppy in the exercise of their duty) that they'll vote for a ballot option that contradicts reality, keeping them from winning this particular GR isn't very comforting at all... -- 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/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature