On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:50:40 +0100 Bernhard Reiter wrote: > Hi Francesco, > > let me give you my personal view on the issue:
Thanks for your time! > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:19:48PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > I share many of MJ Ray's concerns about the design of the GPLv3 > > development process. > > > > I fear the process will not take into account all the issues that > > will be brought to the FSF's attention. The process leaders could > > neglect (even in good faith) the issues that they feel as > > unimportant or minor, while concentrating on some others only. > > yes, it is true , the last call will be made by Richard. > However I do not consider this a disadvantage > as Richard is known to accept any substantial argument > based on the argument alone. > He is a lot better in this than any scientist I know. > So if somebody wants an issue in - give Richard a good argument. I hope that's true, but the lack of progress on the GFDL issue is not what I'd call a good precedent... :-( > > > How can you assure every group's voice will be heard? > > How can you assure the Discussion Committees will represent the > > various categories of interested parties adequately? > > IIUC, Committees will be formed by invitation in top-down fashion: > > how can a group of interested people become one such committee? > > The process document at http://gplv3.fsf.org/process-definition > describes two possibilities to become part of a committee: > You get an invitation from the FSF or > you get invited later by one of the committees. > > Given that the committees are there to channel the comments > so that the FSF and Richards are able to work, the design is > reasonable. Basically I imagine those committees to be the ears and > eyes of Richard. This means they better should fit him and his working > style. With such wide open ears, documenting everything reasonable > they hear, it will be hard for a group to not be heard. > They would need to throw away their ticket number. So, let's hope I won't throw away mine... > > > IMHO, the FSF should make this process more democratic and open. > > > > P.S.: please Cc: me on replies, as I am not subscribed to the list; > > thanks. > > I think this process is a huge improvement over how it was done in > the past any by other groups that draft licenses. Note that the GPL > writing was never a democratic process. If we were to follow the > majority it is likely that we would not have Free Software, GNU/Linux > nor the GNU GPL. That is true, and was especially true in the pioneer times, when Free Software was known to very few people only. Now there's a Free Software community, though. I think the concern of the core of this community should be taken into account (especially when a Freeness issue is raised). > > Having the main part of the process written down in a rather short > document, the ability to give trackable comments, and the time frame > of a year make this process quite open. > > Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement > and I expect the FSF to be open for your comments! Let's hope for the best... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpQwHV5UCSth.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
