Ben Finney <[email protected]> writes: > And if someone doing the work is not persuaded by this?
> What if one of the many who do *not* find that GR to be persuasive is > in the position to reject a package containing FDL-licensed work, and > does so on the basis that their interpretation of the DFSG and FDL > mean that the package is not free? Then you talk to that person and point out that their opinion is not shared with the rest of the project, with the GR as strong evidence. If that isn't sufficient, that's what the delegate override is for, but in practice it would never come to that, since if the GR passed, a delegate override is going to pass too. Plus, it's never going to come up in anywhere near that clear-cut of a fashion. > By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's > interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally > valid. The GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going > through the GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the > decision? Because people treat them seriously and follow them voluntarily even if they don't personally agree. It feels to me like you're insisting on adding mechanisms to force poeple to do things into the process that simply aren't necessary historically. I would really rather focus on solving the problems that we actually have, rather than theoretical problems that assume fellow DDs are going to do obviously stupid things. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
