On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> writes: > > I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The > > last two votes were not about the GFDL. > > Why did we take the second vote? > > Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote > required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it > was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. That was _one_ reason people wanted to delay implementing it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the resolution implicitly endorsed the unfreeness of the GFDL. People may have voted to delay the changes because they agreed with their general spirit, but didn't want to engage in hashing out their full implications right before Sarge, whether they thought the GFDL fine or not; better simply to postpone the whole mess until latter. Now, we're having that debate, and a vote to clarify the ramifications of the editorial changes. I see no repitition, no refusal to accept what has been settled. What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Because nobody could _really_ believe that the GFDL is OK. It's just inconceivable! Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense. We're just a herd of dangerous idiots and renegades. Far safer to endow a known right-thinking (and for all intents and purposes permanent) official with the necessary power to keep Debian pure and tell the developers what they should think... Yes, a few people are still publically bitter about the way the editorial changes were handled, but so what. Just ignore them. They're not calling for a vote to overturn the editorial changes. As it turns out, a number of people who agreed with the editorial changes don't believe that it follows from them that the GFDL should be removed, or that the GFDL without invariant sections should be removed. We're now trying to assert that view, and a vote will decide whether we're a minority or not. Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgpUJIkRSHyRc.pgp
Description: PGP signature