On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote: > > I agree that there are practical implications, and that something > > should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a > > resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should be > > interpreted. > > I stand by my opinion that calling for a vote on clarifying the > interpretation of DFSG #2 without having the implications and > alternatives represented on the ballot and in the discussion will > result in a biassed outcome.
The alternatives which are germane to the proposal are those that determine that the DFSG does not mean what the proposal says it does. [That is, proposals on the lines of Steve's proposal.] Proposals establishing exceptions based on the implications of what the DFSG says seem disparate to me, although important.[1] > The point of my last paragraph was that if your proposal is split > off, a totally new situation is created and thus a decent period > should be allowed to submit new amendments/proposals. Calling a vote > within a few days after the split is officially decided and > announced is IMO procedurally not acceptable (and AFAIK the split > has not yet been decided, nor formally announced). The actual format that the ballot takes is not determinxed until the secretary makes that determination after someone calls for a vote under A.2.1-3. Anything on v.d.o is merely advisory in this regard. > That would be a perfect example of "tactical vote calling" as Manoj > described at the start of this tread. In order to actually do tactical vote calling, I would second the other proposals, and call for a vote with a ballot containing only them, and then later a vote containing this proposal.[2] Deciding this proposal first puts it in a position to be overridden by the subsequent proposals, while at the same time resolving what the DFSG actually says. Don Armstrong 1: To be perfectly honest, I had always assumed that this would be handled in two separate GRs: Steve's was to clarify what the DFSG said, and if it was clarified in a matter consistent with denying sourceless firmware, to have a second GR dealing with an exception. 2: As could anyone else at this instant, actually... though it would probably be a bit rude. -- He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and the chuck keys for electric drills. -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
