Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> the problem is that we were told that voting for your amendment makes
> it necessary to organise a vote to change the DFSG or the SC… I really
> understand your position, but apparently it is not me or you who
> Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ?
That GR clearly refines the DFSG statement that all programs
need source code. This supersedes the current DFSG, which allows for no
such exception. So the we need to amend the FSG wiht the changes after
the 3:1 vote. (Aside, on a personal note, anything else, to me, smells
of deceptive and underhanded handling of our social contract).
> - What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the
> Secretary does ?
We need to see if the constitution mandates a second 3:1 vote
after a first 3:1 vote to supersede some dictum of a foundation
> - What if a second vote is organised, but not option gets a 3:1 majority ?
> - What if no second vote is organised ?
> - What if Peter's option is voted with less than a 3:1 majority ?
Then it fails.
The interesting question is if Peter's options wins the 3:1
majority, but loses to another option on the ballot. I suppose a second
vote can then be proposed separately to add the firmware exception to
Backed up the system lately?
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C