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

Re: Purpose of the Constitution and the Foundation Documents

----- "Ian Jackson" wrote:

>  A. De-entrenchment: this is very unlikely to achieve the required
>     supermajority.  But it should be on the ballot anyway when
>     we put this mess to a vote after lenny.
>  B. Developers are to interpret: this is I think the only workable
>     option and given that we have several times now had a GR whose
>     outcome was essential identical to that of the Developers in
>     question, I think we might be able to get a supermajority.
>     In case it doesn't, this ballot option should explicitly state
>     that this is the Project's view of the corrent interpretation of
>     the existing constitutional text and that this resolution is
>     intended merely to clarify the constitution.
>  C. Rewrite the documents to be clear.
>     Those of you who remember my term as DPL will remember an enormous
>     flamewar that ensued when I tried to replace the DFSG with a clear
>     statement about what licence conditions were acceptable.  At that
>     time they were't entrenched but even so it became clear that
>     getting a consensus would be impossible because it would involve
>     arguing about every stupid licence condition ever invented.
>     So I think this is a non-starter.
>  D. Establish an interpretation committee: Please god no what a
>     nightmare.  How do you defend the committee from a majority of
>     voters anyway ?  Or are you going to entrench it the way the TC is
>     entrenched ?  That's all very well for technical decisions but
>     it would be quite wrong for political ones to do with the
>     project's goals.

Your reasoning is sound as usual. Unfortunately, I do not see a solution in your conclusions (which remind me a bit of reading The Economist). We are stuck in a chronic morass because our mission to deliver a Free Software (or Open Source or whatever) operating system is built on terms for which there is no real agreement.

Its easy to design a legal system for a world where no one breaks the law. In real life you can't have B without some form of D. Sooner or later someone will put a crazy sourceless binary into main that people take issue with. Its simply a question of degree. The problem today is that "option D" is supplied in the form of a 18-monthly GR fight over RC DFSG compliance bugs. So while I agree with your reasoning, I challenge you to work things through to their conclusion. B is not a solution, its the beginning of a problem.

"Do what thou wilt" -- Francois Rabelais

Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
ean@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315

Reply to: