On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote: > > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?) > > Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation > document is the previous option. What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because that is what I mean. We are agreeing to do something which the foundation document said we would not, but only for a certain period of time (etch). I don't _care_ what you call that, I call it a temporary override of a foundation document. > > 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?) > > 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't > > want to override the FD (?) > > 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say > > which of 2-5 it is. > > 4-6 are normal position statements AFAICS. That's certainly a point of view, but not the one every holds. > > 1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like. > > > > 3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but > > we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release". > > This one would be in 4-6 AFAICS. Why do you say that. This is definitely contrary to a foundation document (if you don't think it is, please pick a different example which is) and we want it to be binding. Ergo, not a position statement. > > 5. is something like "Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs. This > > does not override the DFSG", which I don't think makes any sense. > > One cannot override a document. See above. I'm not interested in arguing about terminology, I think it's clear what I mean by 'override a document', please suggest alternative phrasing if you prefer. > As the DFSG is a document that state our guidelines of what is free, I > don't see how it would get changed even temporary when we would have a > vote on 'Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs'. OK, if you prefer it changes the SC to allow exceptions which don't conform to the DFSG. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear here, I was hoping people would get the gist of what I meant, but I'll try and be more pedantic in future. > > Now, I understand you don't like the use of 'override' when describing > > option 3, I'm happy to describe it as something else, but _I_ think that > > the constitution at the moment requires 3:1 majority for this sort of > > vote. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is > > why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset. > > Well, what I propose to do is to read the constitution and use its terms > instead, which would ease these discussions a lot AFAICS. That would be great, unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a grey area here, hence the problems. Please do suggest better terms. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature