[Foundation-l] GFDL Q&A update and question

Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 19:30:39 UTC 2009

2009/1/8 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
>> As for majority required, I would say something more than 50% should
>> be necessary. We traditionally favour the status quo in pretty much
>> everything we do (except, for some reason, with the 3RR, I've never
>> understood that... but that's a discussion for another time and
>> place). Also, if we say 50% is all that's required and the result
>> comes out as 50.3% or something, you should know it's going to cause
>> massive drama (if we chose 60% and the results is 60.3% there is still
>> going to be plenty of drama, of course, but hopefully less). I'd go
>> with a requirement of 60%, but that's really just a number plucked out
>> of thin air, I welcome suggestions from people with actual reasons!
> I'd say 100%, because you shouldn't purport to take away someone's right to
> attribution without their permission.

We discussing a move to CC-****BY****-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether Original Author is, in the context of a wiki, just the latest
editor or all editors), but it seems clear to me that we can require
people to link back to Wikipedia (in particular, the history page) so
that everyone is, at least indirectly, attributed. Given that that's
how most people are using the GFDL anyway, I really don't see the

More information about the foundation-l mailing list