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: