Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking people more familiar > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist.
What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO* proposals without ascertaining their effect first. How many more times are you going to make proposals before getting the facts down?? I hope "none", but I fear otherwise. > > I would be ok with a proportional limit, provided that it was set high > > enough to cause no problems for things already in the archive. > > So anything failing DFSG 3 that happens to be in main due to an > oversight should be grandfather by my proposal? That's what "no > problems" means, and would be grounds for rejecting my proposal outright > as an attempt to repeal DFSG 3. Does your proposal contradict DFSG 3 or not? If so, then it's totally illegitimate, because if you want to amend the DFSG, such proposals are powerless to accomplish it. I assume, therefore, that your proposal does *not* conflict with DFSG 3--and that this is, in fact, your opinion. (It is also my opinion that your proposal does not conflict with DFSG at all.) If it doesn't conflict: then it either is purely clarificatory, or else it suggests restrictions beyond those required by DFSG. If you want it to be purely clarificatory, then it has to take as a prior presumption that previous actions are still allowed--that is, if it has no further restrictive effect, then approving it should not suddenly result in existing packages being removed from main. If it does have that effect, then the attempt at clarification has ipso facto failed, because it's amounting to a new restriction. If it's a new restriction (and I am not intrinsically opposed to new restrictions), then I ask that it not restrict in such a way as to cause packages currently in main to get thrown out. So, please answer the following for me. These are pretty simple yes/no questions. 1) Do you believe your proposal to contradict the DFSG? 2) If the answer to question (1) is "no", then do you see your proposal as merely clarifying practice, or do you see it as imposing an additional restriction beyond those currently believed to obtain? Thomas
