Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:38:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > the problem is that we were told that voting for your amendment makes > > it necessary to organise a vote to change the DFSG or the SC… I really > > understand your position, but apparently it is not me or you who > > decides. > > > Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ? > > That GR clearly refines the DFSG statement that all programs > need source code. This supersedes the current DFSG, which allows for no > such exception. So the we need to amend the FSG wiht the changes after > the 3:1 vote. (Aside, on a personal note, anything else, to me, smells > of deceptive and underhanded handling of our social contract). > > > - What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the > > Secretary does ? > > We need to see if the constitution mandates a second 3:1 vote > after a first 3:1 vote to supersede some dictum of a foundation > document.
Hi Manoj, What is the way of seeing if the constitution mandates a second vote? I think that it would be really be helpful if things could be explained in a more operational way. For instance : what does "we need to amend" means? That it would be better, but that we can continue without? That a vote with no "Further discussion" will be taken? That the GR will lose its effect if we do not amend the DFSG? Lastly, I read the mail of Lars with a great interest. Is it possible to vote a non-supermajority option stating that we will release Lenny even if it infringes the DFSG? That would nicely solve the problem. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
