----- "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 e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
