simo simo.sorce@xsec.it
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 20:40 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
[bug tracking GPLv3]
How the devil could that have got out of control? It uses skills that FSF should already have available, unlike a large political caucus structure, which looks strange for hackers and easy for the uncooperative to subvert.
I do not understand what are you talking about. The web site tool is very powerful and very useful both for putting comments and for searching/browsing or aggregating them into issues, you should try it out. And where's the large political caucus structure ??
Try it out??? That web site tool tells me that my browser is not supported, even though it's a recent Gecko-based one. Not that it's easy to read the badly-CSS'd page anyway. (The message has changed since I last looked to say "Loading comments. If you're still reading this, it's a strong indication that we do not properly support your browser yet. You may need to _email your comments_ instead, or try another recent Gecko-based browser. You can, however, _browse comments_ on any browser.")
Compare: "We support the Best Viewed with Any Browser campaign" http://www.gnu.org/server/fsf-html-style-sheet.html#HTMLGuidelines
The large political caucus structure is described in http://gplv3.fsf.org/process-definition - mere serfs only make comments to the appointed Discussion Committees who then decide what to present to the Foundation in direct hearings (Minor) or International meetings (Major). The Discussion Committees meetings need not be public, so I call it a caucus system after the non-public political party meetings or the WSIS group meetings.
The process being used so far is a conference in the homeland of the DMCA, a Big-Business-friendly launch press release, a web site with poor accessibility, and committees to filter comments into group statements for leaders to consider. It all seems rather similar to the Vienna process to me. Sorry, but if it looks like a duck, I ask: will it quack like a duck?
So what's the point in this rant ?
Try to promote the request to use an open, familiar process with a truly international aspect instead of the cooptable caucuses. Look up "Regulatory Capture" and compare vulnerable models with the GPLv3 process. No licensor nor licensee should be allowed to influence this process in secret.
I think you should calm down and look at the outcome, and partecipate by leaving insightful comments on the draft, that would help. It's not at all like the Vienna process, and it does not pretend to be "democratic", but it is open to comments as it should be.
These criticisms are made calmly. I'd really prefer to have these bugs fixed long before the outcome maybe goes wrong. The arguments for secrecy are rather limited, aren't they?
Would leaving comments help? The opaque process does make me doubt it. Each time I ask a question about the process, there's been either "wait" or no clear answer AFAICR.
"Democratic" can just mean governed by the people. If the FSF did not wish there to be any democracy in GPLv3, then the comments process is insincere. I don't believe that's the case, so I'd like to see at least the minimal democratic transparency.
The License is that of the FSF and I think the FSF has all the rights to decide which process to use to design a new license. The FSF has demonstrated innumerable times their ideas, and I think you can put at least some trust in their intentions.
Of course the FSF has the right to use whatever process it wants. I have the right to question the process and it would be wonderful to see some of the FSF board minutes that show the reasoning.
I think FSF members want the GPLv3 to be useful and have wide public support, but I think it looks like they have picked a lousy tool to try to accomplish that.
I have more trust in FSF over the GPL than when they go outside free software, but I admit that my trust was shaken by treating valid FDL concerns with contempt.
Regards,