On 2003-09-11, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>> I am hoping that I can deal with both organizations _as_ >>> organizations. >> >> I think this very premise is shaky. No one person can really >> represent the Debian project when iot comes to the DFSG and the >> social contract -- not even the DPL has power delegatged to him to >> change fundamental issues about the project. The only decision can >> be made is through a general resolution of the voting membership. > > Would it be useful for debian-legal to designate a point-man, as it > were, who could summarize discussions here and send the result to the > FSF? It would introduce quite a delay in any back-and-forth, but that > seems unavoidable, and it would certainly cut down on the amount of > text the FSF side would have to read while maintaining transparency.
For precedent for this, see the excellent (informal) work Jeff Licquia did in communicating Debian's concerns to the LaTeX project, reported in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00006.html In the earlier discussions, Frank Mittelbach had expressed in inability to keep up with all the messages addressed at him, much like RMS has done this time around. OTOH, the LaTeX project had expressed considerable willingness to change, much more than I've seen from RMS, who seems completely inflexible on the core issue of invariant sections. Peace, Dylan
