Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:32:33 -0600]:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
> > > * Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]:
>
> > >> Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> > >> > This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
>
> > >> The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
> > >> amended.
>
> > >> Therefore I think we should decide on a new wording before the vote
> > >> instead of letting someone else decide on it.
>
> > > Can the SC be modified without a second vote?
>
> > I don't see why we need a second 3:1 vote on a foundation
> > document after having a 3:1 vote that supersedes part of it.
>
> And who is going to modify it if the original vote does not include a
> wording?
Guys, I think this is not productive. If the vote wins, it won't be by
chance, it will mean there's a 3:1 majority that supports this change. At
that point, if the wording is contentious, you can always propose another
vote to resolve that.
And looking at what others (e.g. Peter) had to say about this, it seems the
position among those who support sourceless firmware is not unanimous. This
would have to be resolved in some way, too. Either with a new vote, or by
adding a new option to this ballot.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: