i...@davenant.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
> In fact I'm strongly opposed to all
> of these binary firmware blobs and like nonsense. It's just that I
> recognise that the way I would have to fight that battle is by helping
> to do the work to get them out of Linux rather than postponing
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,
Ean Schuessler 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 they're explicitly
- "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
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 4
Ean Schuessler writes ("Re: Purpose of the Constitution and the Foundation
Documents"):
> [Ian Jackson] wrote:
> > A. De-entrenchment: this is very unlikely to achieve the required
> > supermajority. But it should be on the ballot anyway when
> > we put
Matthew Vernon writes ("Re: Purpose of the Constitution and the Foundation
Documents"):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > - To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
> >require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
> >of their
- "Ian Jackson" wrote:
> A. De-entrenchment: this is very unlikely to achieve the required
> supermajority. But it should be on the ballot anyway when
> we put this mess to a vote after lenny.
> B. Developers are to interpret: this is I think the only workable
> option and given that we h
Hi,
> - To help voters choose, the following people should be able to
>require the Secretary to quote on each GR ballot form a URL
>of their choice, to be used by them for disseminating their vews on
>the vote:
>The Proposer of each resolution or amendment
>The Project
Ian Jackson writes:
> C. Rewrite the foundation documents so that they are clearly
> comprehensible (rather than vague) and establish an independent
> legally-minded body to make these decisions.
>
> D. Establish (or empower) some kind of interpretation committee,
> which would have
I agree with much of the criticism of the outgoing Secretary's actions
in the Lenny GR vote. But I think we need to look to see how this
came to pass.
In my view the mistake came when the project voted to entrench the
Foundation Documents by requiring a 3:1 supermajority to change them.
This is
11 matches
Mail list logo
