Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:38:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> 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
> > decides.
>
> > 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
> document.
Hi Manoj,
What is the way of seeing if the constitution mandates a second vote?
I think that it would be really be helpful if things could be explained in a
more operational way.
For instance : what does "we need to amend" means? That it would be better, but
that we can continue without? That a vote with no "Further discussion" will be
taken? That the GR will lose its effect if we do not amend the DFSG?
Lastly, I read the mail of Lars with a great interest. Is it possible to vote a
non-supermajority option stating that we will release Lenny even if it
infringes the DFSG? That would nicely solve the problem.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: