Re: Supermajority first?

[Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>]

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 
> For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
> secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
> majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
> supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the basis of
> that.
> 
> So, Kurt, what's your take on it?

So, the problematic parts are:
"1. firmware in Debian does not have to come with source."
"2. we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG
mandate from components of our operating system"

If you only look at the first, you could interprete it as
a position statement, but even then it's not clear that
it's a position statement or not.

But 2) makes it totaly unclear what 1) really means.  2) seems to
indicate that 1) modifies some foundation document.

So my problem with it is that it's too much open for
interpretation.

If you would like that such an option does not get a 3:1 majority
requirement, I suggest you reword it so that it's clearly a
position statement.


Kurt