On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:45:59AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
This leaves us with really four options:
A. Explicitly de-entrench the Foundation Documents by repealing
Constitution 4.1(5) 1..3 and establishing the Social Contract
and DFSG as simple Position Statements according to
Raphael Hertzog writes (Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call
for votes for the Lenny release GR)):
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
[Raphael:]
I agree with the intent but I don't agree with the list of persons you
selected. I would restrict it to:
- The
- Ian Jackson wrote:
Then the ftpmasters and/or the TC will decide to throw it out. If you
don't trust the ftpmasters and you don't trust the TC then what kind
of setup could you trust ? If you're only willing to trust yourself
and your hand-picked co-adherents then I'm afraid you need
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
What you are avoiding is that the FTP masters or the Technical Committee
*is* option D in your scheme. They are the final arbitrators of DFSG
compliance.
I see nothing in the constitution that empowers the TC to rule on
licensing issues except when
Russ Allbery wrote:
In other words, if non-free is just another archive section, why do we
have this whole distinction? And while we're maintaining this
distinction, I think it's clear that moving something into non-free is
never going to be an action people are willing to take lightly. Since,
5 matches
Mail list logo
