GPLv3 Process Definition

[MJ Ray]

Zak Greant <zak at greant.com>
> The process is designed to be extremely inclusive. Visit http:// 
> gplv3.fsf.org/, sign up and read the materials on the process.

So far, I see that the process document is published as PDF only
rather than as xhtml, even though it seems to be only text.
That's a bad precedent - PDF is not as easily read online.
That's just a minor exclusion worry, though:


EXTREMELY INCLUSIVE? OR VULNERABLE?

The main inclusion method seems to be 5 discussion committees:
 1. public and private enterprises;
 2. vendors, commercial and non-commercial distributors;
 3. GPL projects;
 4. non-GPL projects;
 5. users and individual developers. (from section 3.1)

These committees are to "represent" those large areas, to
use majority voting and to be time-limited. Even the mix is very
debatable: only one place for individuals? What's the definition
of "enterprise"?  Will there be double representation of entities
who fit more than one of the above labels? There are still huge
questions about this, even before worrying about the effect of
wealth and geographic distributions of participants.

There are low-level problems with a hierarchical representative
model, made worse by grouping heterogenous views together: it
may mask significant (even 49%) minority opinions at each level.
There's no requirement that these committees work in public (s3.2),
so the outcomes look very vulnerable to distortion and capture.

Please will the FSF announce how other forms of business
and other community voices get at least equal access and
representation?


WHY THIS PROCESS?

Given what we have seen with a similar structure under WSIS-CS,
given we want broad community inclusion and support for GPLv3,
given fundamental differences of opinion are likely to be few,
given the number of non-hierarchical and consensual supporter
groups, how and why has such a divisive process been selected?

Only the general idea of discussion groups is rationalised.
I don't see the key process decisions about majority rule,
exclusivity, hierarchy and non-publication being justfied.


NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT

Already, I find myself not allowed to comment on the process
as suggested: I can't find the comment or suggestion area on
GPLv3.fsf.org (s4.1) - I hope my comments will be sent from
team at fsfeurope to the correct process. If someone can tell me
how to find the comments place, please do so by email.


THIS ISN'T A COMMENT ON GPLv3

I'm happy with GPL-2 and I'm interested to see what's
suggested for 3. This isn't a comment on the GPLv3. I can't,
as I have little idea what direction it is going.

With the document and the news release, I am worried that the
process has been constructed in a way that makes it easy to
ignore and marginalise traditional supporters (divide and rule)
and bias it towards wooing one target faction instead.

To the previous poster who claimed it needs three corporate
councils for press coverage: this looks big enough news to get
the same coverage with two corporate counsels and one of the
more famous free software projects. Intentionally or not, this
news release also sent a message directly to most of the
community: FSF doesn't think we're important. The ultimate
proof or disproof of that will be in the coming actions.
Not surprising I'm alarmed by all the above together, is it?

-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask