Heya,
I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
Marc
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. W
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:30:45AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In fact, Adeodato's amendment is clear in its explanation that "we
> > believe that the GFDL does meet the spirit of the DFSG (so long as you
> > have no invariant sections)". [...]
> Th
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
As per A.
I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
On Thursday 09 February 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>---8<---
>
>Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
>=
>
>This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free D
seconded (again).
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.02.09.0626 +0100]:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - i
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
> suspect that many of the prop
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Docum
Seconded.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
previous wording (not
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian doesn't have courts. The closest we've got is debian-legal,
The closest thing to courts we have are DPL, TC, DAM, FTP masters and
the Project Secretary. They have a final decision making power that
effectively resolves any disputes among the d
Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a
very good examp
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
Seconded.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all
Dear Mr Secretary,
Can we have a vote please, kind sir?
To my knowledge, the proposal and related amendments are:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Proposed by: Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sponsors:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's probably a little bit hard for folks to find the most important
> bits from the discussion we've had -- since there's been a lot of stuff
> on -vote recently, and a lot more of the discussion has been on -legal
> over the past fe
On Feb 09, Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
> And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
> software, and they shall be dis
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> previous wording (not everything is software)
This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> relicensing to happen, one mus
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > previous wording (not everything is software)
> This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".
Well, maybe
Hi,
Xavier Roche wrote:
I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
software, and they shall be distributed with their original sou
Hi,
You make good arguments and I agree with many points. But the following:
2006/2/8, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even if for some reason that I am unable to fathom you do fervently
> believe that I am wrong in the above paragraph, then there is *still
> nothing* to say that we can't ha
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > > previous wording (not everything is software)
> > This has alread
I second the amendment quoted below.
Christopher Martin
On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
> Documentation Licens
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-09 06:26]:
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
seconded (again).
> D
I second the amendment quoted below.
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
>
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> The only people it made happy are
Re: Adeodato Simó in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> L
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
>
> Hey ! Loo
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
> Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
> they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.
No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a decept
to, 2006-02-09 kello 15:13 +0100, Xavier Roche kirjoitti:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
> > Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
> > they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.
>
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote:
> > I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
>
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
[...]
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 23:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
> of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?
>
> I think that it is possible for peo
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundatio
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the
"Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, Thursday, February 09, 2006
8:08 AM
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
>> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>>
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What makes this entirely disgusting, is that the bees have extremely
> large overlap with the toads; the wasps with the frogs.
I'm not sure about it, of course just because I'm a toad and a wasp.
And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that t
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1]
I need to correct this. The title for my proposal is
[ ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the current DFSG
First, the whole text of my proposal talks
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do
> > whatever we want with it.
>
> > The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > do whatever we want with it.
> >
> > The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
> > During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
> > clear there are two completely different notions of "freedom" among
> > us.
> >
> > Th
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If the project secretary decides
> > that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> > mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> > that ou
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not place limitations on "various needs". Any modification that
> is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
> desirable.
So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents
many modifications which serve
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
>> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
>> > felt that the proposed re
Anthony Towns writes:
> Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no]
> If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
> Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
>
> As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances
> we
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 12:12 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a
écrit :
> > Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
> > editorial !
>
> A lot of us thought it was far and beyond "editorial", which is why GR
> 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke*
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote
> > on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders,
> > then who should be trusted?
>
> S
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I do not place limitations on "various needs". Any modification that
> > is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
> > desirable.
>
> So, once more, the
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
> DFSG interpretations wi
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I do not place limitations on "various needs". Any modification that
>> > is not just subjective wish but serves some practical
Hi,
I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we
can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over,
which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb
25th.
Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a
proposal do no
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on
> such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who
> should be trusted?
So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?
--
To
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two
> votes were not about the GFDL.
Why did we take the second vote?
Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs fr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
>> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
>> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Christopher Martin]
>> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
>> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
>> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
>> agree with the
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The
> > last two votes were not about the GFDL.
>
> Why did we take the second vote?
>
> Hint: because the Release Mana
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
> relicensing to happe
[Christopher Martin]
> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
> agree with them.
And yet in this very thread we *still* have pe
On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> > subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> > incapable of grasping the possibil
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
On 9 Feb 2006, Anton Zinoviev spake thusly:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>
>> [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases
>> [3:1]
>
> I need to correct this. The title for my proposal is
>
> [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the c
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> > the foundation documents".
>
> First of all,
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
This may be annoying
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
> Our fellow readers ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-fr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
What did they say in response to qu
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:18:59PM +0200]:
> > > The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this
> > > freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds
> > > this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian.
> >
> > The problem with
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> > old wording that can
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough
to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time
and so I suppose you cou
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
> > Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
> Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?
Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message.
> What did they say in
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> How is this relevant?
It shows that there was a widely
On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> > prerogative
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> > accept non-free documentation into main.
>> How i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
>> changes?"
> I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.
Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception" h
On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
> deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.
> Were you "deceived" by the
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> right.
Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secret
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
>> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
>> deceived.
> Well, at least now you agree that the GR
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> > right.
>
> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
> that must be exercised by a 3:1 v
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
>> > right.
>>
>> Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT m
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?
The constitution says:
"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
I think that's pretty clea
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we
> can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over,
> which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb
> 25th.
I'm pretty
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.
Actually, it was mostly about f
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
> > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 f?vrier 2006 ? 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a ?crit :
> > On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > > to be non-editorial. I c
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
>> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
>> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.
>
>
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:19, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part
> of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation
> being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis
> for your implicit claim that the secretar
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:18, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have tha
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in
> the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
> tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
> majority to pass.
> If
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a person
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:24:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> >> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now tha
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
>> > set or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret
>> > the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
>> > decide to make the pa
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
must make a determination as best as h
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard
> resolution procedure are inappropriate.
Perhaps you have misunderstood me because I was unclear.
I am not trying to suppress anything. I am concerned that the
procedure is
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
> long.
Before
On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment
> > concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for
> > that power, it follows that to arbitrarily i
On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The phrase you used was "personal whim."
>
> Whose judgment should he use instead?
No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > set or not?
>
> The constitution says:
>
> "... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secret
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
