In discussion@fsfeurope.org, simo wrote:
The current GPLv3 comment system should be junked before the end of the process and replaced with a more common email+web-forum-based moderated consultation which is open to all hackers with the most basic software.
Hey you know what? This commenting system actually requires a computer and a network connection!!!! Oh my God! It requires all that!
This kind of arrogance and cynism is exactly what's called for in this situation. And I've observed it a lot in various forms in such discussions.
The issue of browser dependence is not really new (about 10 years old, minimum), so I don't think I need to explain how it differs from the requirement of (any kind of) computer with (any kind of) network connection.
I'm likewise amazed about the ridiculousness of some other arguments used to support it, such as quoting browser statistics. Just imagine another organisation, say the EU, making an influential survey on an important political matter, requiring a certain OS, browser, document format or whatever that "98% of computer users use or have ready access to". What an outcry this would be here! (But the supported browser in this case is a free one? Well, yes, but it's still only one browser, other free browsers are not supported. Also, even though we probably agree that when others use such means to get an unfair advantage to proprietary software, this is a bad thing, it doesn't mean that using the same means, intentionally or nor, to get an unfair advantage to free software is a good thing.)
BTW, http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html says: "The GPLv3 comment system is actively being developed, and its browser compatibility is currently limited." So this means, according to the usual meaning of "currently", that the issue will be resolved, does it? I just wonder if this is going to happen before the end of the process (seeing that it's been at least several months now since the issue was first brought up), otherwise it would be of no value.
I've looked at the comment system, using The Supported Browser(tm), and it does look nice and spiffy and all, and its authors are probably quite proud of the program, rightfully. Unfortunately, a public comment process about the most important (as intended) free software licence for the next several years is exactly the wrong place to deploy it; here, spiffy features should be second in importance to the maximum possible openness.
Finally, I'll note that http://gplv3.fsf.org/ abuses the "Any Browser" tag (which it applies to "This site" which by usual definition includes all subpages, such as the comment system). As long as the issue isn't resolved, I hope they will at least be so honest as to remove this tag. (CC to webmaster@gplv3.fsf.org for this reason; if another address or a special form and/or browser must be used to post such comments to the web masters, anyone feel free to forward this; I won't.)
Now all you who support the current comment system can go on asserting each other how good it is, but it won't convince anyone else. Even if I don't share all of the Linux developers' concerns about the GPLv3, I understand well why they didn't submit them via the designated route, but chose to write an open letter instead ...
Frank