On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:50:40 +0100 Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Hi Francesco,
let me give you my personal view on the issue:
Thanks for your time!
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:19:48PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I share many of MJ Ray's concerns about the design of the GPLv3 development process.
I fear the process will not take into account all the issues that will be brought to the FSF's attention. The process leaders could neglect (even in good faith) the issues that they feel as unimportant or minor, while concentrating on some others only.
yes, it is true , the last call will be made by Richard. However I do not consider this a disadvantage as Richard is known to accept any substantial argument based on the argument alone. He is a lot better in this than any scientist I know. So if somebody wants an issue in - give Richard a good argument.
I hope that's true, but the lack of progress on the GFDL issue is not what I'd call a good precedent... :-(
How can you assure every group's voice will be heard? How can you assure the Discussion Committees will represent the various categories of interested parties adequately? IIUC, Committees will be formed by invitation in top-down fashion: how can a group of interested people become one such committee?
The process document at http://gplv3.fsf.org/process-definition describes two possibilities to become part of a committee: You get an invitation from the FSF or you get invited later by one of the committees.
Given that the committees are there to channel the comments so that the FSF and Richards are able to work, the design is reasonable. Basically I imagine those committees to be the ears and eyes of Richard. This means they better should fit him and his working style. With such wide open ears, documenting everything reasonable they hear, it will be hard for a group to not be heard. They would need to throw away their ticket number.
So, let's hope I won't throw away mine...
IMHO, the FSF should make this process more democratic and open.
P.S.: please Cc: me on replies, as I am not subscribed to the list; thanks.
I think this process is a huge improvement over how it was done in the past any by other groups that draft licenses. Note that the GPL writing was never a democratic process. If we were to follow the majority it is likely that we would not have Free Software, GNU/Linux nor the GNU GPL.
That is true, and was especially true in the pioneer times, when Free Software was known to very few people only. Now there's a Free Software community, though. I think the concern of the core of this community should be taken into account (especially when a Freeness issue is raised).
Having the main part of the process written down in a rather short document, the ability to give trackable comments, and the time frame of a year make this process quite open.
Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement and I expect the FSF to be open for your comments!
Let's hope for the best...