On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:58PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > <sigh> You're completely missing the point - I'm _not_ saying that the > disagreement should cause the GR. If we have a licensing issue that > needs deciding clearly, we need to involve the rest of the DDs in > making that decision. All the handwaving in the world on -legal won't > change that.
You said "take that to a vote". Votes to "tighten up and clarify" the DFSG certainly seem to mean GRs. If that's not what you mean, say what you mean; please stop making me guess, and then getting exasperated when I do. > >My opinion might change if there was an indication that this was a > >widespread and unreconcilable disagreement: if we can't come to a > >solid consensus on a real issue, then something else needs to be done. > >However, simple disagreement and discussion doesn't indicate that; > >discussion very often leads to agreement. (In practice, it's very > >rare for d-legal to not be able to reach a reasonable consensus on > >a real issue.) > > *rotfl* Good joke. I suppose it depends on what you mean by > "consensus". (It's very clear, from this statement, that you have little experience with d-legal.) -- Glenn Maynard
