Subject: Re: Validity of DFSG #10
Date: Tuesday 8th January 2013 17:26:18 UTC (over 5 years ago)
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Validity of DFSG #10"): > But we would be happy to work with / lead / whatever-one-names it with a > group of volunteers together. Exact details of how that works out are to > be found, but im sure we can. If there are volunteers for it... I would volunteer. But: We have had problems in the past with a self-selecting group containing an imbalance of views (compared to the rest of the project) trying to take control of these important and politically charged decisions. This has been worked around to an extent by ftpmaster essentially ignoring "conclusions" from debian-legal (which FAOD I think is entirely proper), but the perception from outside the project is confused to say the least. While licensing discussions are for many people a tedious interruption from real work there are also people for whom they are an attractive way to influence the world and advance their ideological causes. (Obviously I'm including myself in that latter category.) So if we are to set up a formal decisionmaking group for licensing questions, we need to be sure that its selection mechanisms are sound, that it is properly representative of the project as a whole and that all of its members are DDs. Perhaps we should have a project-wide election, with hustings and a set of representative licence questions for the candidates to answer ? (Condorcet is a bad voting system for electing representative panels - it tends to result in majority domination; we should use STV or perhaps Shulze STV.) If we did this we'd have to redo the election every few years. Such a panel would arguably also be a more appropriate venue than the TC for deciding what policy should say about cross-suite dependency lines (#681419). IMO we should also establish a new forum for its deliberations to which only members of the panel are able to post. This avoids domination of the discussion by those (like myself...) who have a lot of time to argue about licensing, vis a vis those doing technical work. Ian.  I use "political" and "ideological" without criticism. Debian's chief goal - freedom - is a matter of ideology. And because freedom always means escaping from someone's control, it's also a matter of politics.