Em Qua, 2006-01-25 às 10:35 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm escreveu: > Some people want to have one big GR with all the options on it. > Other people (like me) think it's better to have two separate GRs: > * one to decide if GNU FDL is free or not and > * one to decide how we should explain our decision. > Adeodato's amendment was for the "one big GR" setup. > My proposal was for the "two separate GRs" setup. > If there is not enough support for the "two separate GRs" setup, then I > will consider modifying my proposal to fit into the "one big GR" setup. > But I first want to see if there is any support.
I, personally, think that we must have the lesser number of GRs we can... GRs are a quite expensive (in the sense of energy) way of dealing with stuff... And also, the public statement about GFDL is a natural consequence of the first GR, so, if we do need to vote for a statement (which I doubt), let's vote it together with the decision itself... Like, a) Debian thinks GFDL is non-free and will publish the following statement... b) Debian thinks GFDL without invariant sections is free and will publish the following statement... c) Debian thinks GFDL is free at all and will publish the following statement... d) Debian can't decide right now and will keep the things as they are now (won't say anything, but will keep the delegate's decisions)... I don't see a reason to split it into two GRs... And I don't think a proposal to include it in main even being considered non-free would get enough seconds... What I would suggest to the project's secretary is to re-start this GR process, as it seems too confusing by now (can it be done?)... daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
