Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote: >> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make >> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views >> > the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no >> > way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension >> > of the DFSG. >> >> The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we can >> decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we want simply >> by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to them meet a 3:1 >> majority becomes rather pointless. > > This is a real dilemma faced by all constitutions or similar charter > documents. Unfortunately, all constitutions can be undermined by the > reinterpretation of seemingly small details. But one person's "undermining" > is another person's "upholding". > > The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the > authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who > decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through > GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly nothing in my reading of the > Constitution suggests that the Secretary has this power. > > The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who disagrees with > his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a legitimate opinion. Given > the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number of developers > who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too strong a stance for a > Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence > my complaint.
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this issue. [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
