Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-02-02 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things >> which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must >> receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly ca

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-02-02 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:13:36 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that >> things which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents >> must receiv

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-02-02 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things > which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must > receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly cannot be limited only to things > which explicitly

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-01-30 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> >> > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1 >> > supermajority requirement. >> >> The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the >> 3:1 requirem

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-01-30 Thread Anton Zinoviev
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1 > > supermajority requirement. > > The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the > 3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases. Not necessarily

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-01-30 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because the constitution does not specify a standard for sanity or > rationality. It may be *irrational* for the project to claim that the GFDL > with invariant sections meets the DFSG's requirements, and the passing of > such a GR might leave me with

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-01-24 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:36:19AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > > A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is > >wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision, > >and is

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

2006-01-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is >wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision, >and issue the following statement "..." > B) The delegates decision that the GFD