On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making
> process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I
> think some additional clarity around that would have been very helpful.
Not really. I think that the power to decide to violate the DFSG
is not given to _anyone_ in the constitution. Option 4 explicitly adds
this power.
So, currently, the RT can not violate the DFSG (and I think they
have been stating all along that they are not, in their opinion,
violating the DFSG); with option 4 they can. This I think is the
distinction between option 4 and FD.
Why were these clarifying questions not asked of the proposers
in the discussion period?
manoj
--
When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life. Samuel Johnson
Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
