[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bundled votes and the secretary

On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> For gosh sakes man! Try to be polite! Any child can see that GFDL
> invariants violate the DFSG because they cannot be modified.
Concur. GFDL + invariants clearly need to change the DFSG since the DFSG
doesn't allow things which can't be modified [DFSG3]. GFDL - invariants
is equally clearly possible without changing the DFSG. Ergo, 3:1 for the
former and simple majority for the latter.

On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Josslin wrote:
> > For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the
> > Constitution is
> > perfectly correct.  
> Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
> deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way (similar
> options get a different treatment), and without any thought for
> following the constitution itself.

I'm sorry, how is it not relevant? The secretary interprets the
constitution [7.1.3]. If the interpretation is correct then he has
followed the constitution.

Choice 6 says "firmware in Debian does not have to come with source".
DFSG2 says "The program must include source code". Please tell me how
you can _possibly_ reconcile those two statements without modifying the
DFSG and therefore requiring a super majority. 


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: