On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
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
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
that is the case,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not
subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between
simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
beer!!!)
Yeah, um, if
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't
good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a
supervisory one.
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri told this:
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
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are
honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think
contradicts the social contract or
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 05:47, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:
It might be better at setting people's expectations: where they
might expect the secretary to be unbiassed, or at least to pretend
to be, presumably they wouldn't expect that of people proposing
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to
determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there
isn't, then the if in the first part of your sentence is never
satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical.
Wrong.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:53:33 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
(It would also mean that any interpretation is done when the code's
being written; so the decisions are predicatable in advance, and if
any of them appear to be wrong, they can be debated in advance, rather
than
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the
constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least
two other possible sources of that silliness.
I think this circling argument is silly, not the
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial
general resolution proposals as if they'd
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
in a sense, by
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them.
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
write any code for it.
Hi,
Raul Miller schrieb:
This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says if the
resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1.
The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
supermajority.
Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses
some judgement about past events.
For example, imagine a GR that says we have never received any spam.
If
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, 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
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote
as
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly
fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
protection, believe it or not.
Really?
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[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
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
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
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
documents, or even about having to act in accord
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the
silly
fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the
Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone
else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the
constitutional
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
interpreted.
That's a strawman argument.
The ballot options are not being ignored.
I
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin uttered the following:
No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I
take umbrage at your insinuations.
May I take umbrage at your insinuation that the vote to modify
the social contract was illegitimate?
Actually, the
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications
that we're not that honourable and need to have
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin told this:
You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a
foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides
what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation
documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.
However,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory
one.
The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also
has the final decision for the form of the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:10:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human
intervention. I've thought about that before, but
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a
Meh, -devel dropped.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory
one.
The secretary is
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). [...]
This
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
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
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 example of
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,
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
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 wasn't
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 must be
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 the
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
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
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 already been
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 extremists.
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 ! Look ! We've
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 deceptive
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.
No,
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 people
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 case that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
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* GR
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?
So is it
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 without
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 from
[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 same
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 them.
And
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 Manager
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 happen,
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 possibility that
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
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, you're
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 for
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 can
[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-free
[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 questions
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 lead us
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 could
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 response
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 accepted
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.
Ah,
[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 is this
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 Secretary
[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 title was
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 vote.
But
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, and it is a
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 mean
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 clear.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
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 cannot even
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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
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 secretary
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 that
right.
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 the
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 personal
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 that this is
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 passage of some
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 he
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 or
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
