Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Andreas Barth]

* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040505 14:10]:
> ---
> The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
> and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
> updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the 'main' or
> 'contrib' sections which is not free software according to the DFSG.
> ---

I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
resolution:

--
Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities are our users and
the free software community

We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We don't
intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly believe that,
in the long run, their interests are the same.

For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.

For the free software community, we promise to use the Debian Free
Software Guidelines as guidelines for the software that is allowed to
go in the Distribution ("main" on the ftp-mirrors).

We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
these guidelines don't really match. We promise to use our common
sense in this case to get to an appropriate result. We will use our
guidelines in a way that serves our users and the free software
community, and we don't intend to blow our guidelines up to full legal
texts, because we aim to create the best operating system, consisting
of free works, and not a place for lawyers-to-be.

Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the release
manager in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date[1]. Of
course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
policy.

[1] still available as today on
http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt
--



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


pgpCPQ0HuVclG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Eduard Bloch]

> I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> resolution:
> 
> --
> Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities are our users and
> the free software community
...
> community, and we don't intend to blow our guidelines up to full legal
> texts, because we aim to create the best operating system, consisting
> of free works, and not a place for lawyers-to-be.
...

Seconded. The first clear words to resolve the current shit^hbogus
problems.

Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Gast: "Ich warte schon seit zwei Stunden auf mein Fünf-Minuten-Steak."
Kellner: "Seien Sie froh, daß Sie keine Tagessuppe bestellt haben."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Andreas Barth]

* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040528 19:25]:
> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:38:47PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > While we're on the subject of interpretations, the first clause ("The
> > Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom")
> > constitutes a position statement about an issue of the day, under
> > 4.1.5. Anybody who tries to give it a stronger meaning is invited to
> > stop being a dick.
> 
> That meaning is plenty strong as it is.
> 
> "Position of the day statements can overrule foundation documents if
> they achieve a 3:1 majority" seems to be a valid interpetation of the
> constitution.


"... if they achive a 3:1 majority and tell that they (might) overrule
a foundation document".

Reason: Please be specific what you want. As long as a GR doesn't say
that it might touch a foundation document, it doesn't do.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Michael Schiansky]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:19:15AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> resolution:
> 
> --
> Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities are our users and
> the free software community
> 
> We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We don't
> intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly believe that,
> in the long run, their interests are the same.
> 
> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.
> 
> For the free software community, we promise to use the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines as guidelines for the software that is allowed to
> go in the Distribution ("main" on the ftp-mirrors).
> 
> We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
> these guidelines don't really match. We promise to use our common
> sense in this case to get to an appropriate result. We will use our
> guidelines in a way that serves our users and the free software
> community, and we don't intend to blow our guidelines up to full legal
> texts, because we aim to create the best operating system, consisting
> of free works, and not a place for lawyers-to-be.
> 
> Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the release
> manager in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
> re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date[1]. Of
> course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
> policy.
> 
> [1] still available as today on
> http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt
> --

I second this.
(full quote for documentation purpose)

cu, ms

-- 
n: Michael Schiansky (geek / nerd / dd)
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
m: +49 163 49 33 688



pgpF2vGzmUVj8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-06-01 09:19:15 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
resolution:
Don't you need to sign it?
We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
where not were.
re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date[1]. Of
No hyphen in re-inforce. Probably other language bugs, besides the 
proposal being internally inconsistent.

course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
policy.
So, if this option passes, the RM could just revert it to the 
overruled one immediately?

Why are people trying to load the ballot with null options? I'm 
probably being politically naive asking that, but I really don't get 
this.

--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We
> don't intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly
> believe that, in the long run, their interests are the same.

That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
discussion here?

It seems that you're basically resolving not to resolve anything and
maintain the muddy status quo.
 
> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.

I have no idea why this is being discussed in the context of this
vote. I suggest that this is an anciliary issue that should be voted
on separately. [Secretary: is this your understanding as well?]

> Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the
> release manager in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
> re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this
> date[1]. Of course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust
> the release policy.

I would suggest using a positive direction instead of the nebulous
concept of "overruling the decision". That is, direct the release
manager to make a release policy along a specific line to resolve
whatever problem you believe exists in the RM's interpretation of
policy.

Finally, this resolution seems to conflict with the social contract as
it stands. This conflict should be resolved within this proposal by
recinding appropriate sections of the contract, or inserting specific
language to the contract itself.


Don Armstrong

-- 
A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over
expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without
discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the
syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors
are an abundant source of gain.
 -- Anatole France

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:19:15AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
> these guidelines don't really match. We promise to use our common
> sense in this case to get to an appropriate result. We will use our
> guidelines in a way that serves our users and the free software
> community, and we don't intend to blow our guidelines up to full legal
> texts, because we aim to create the best operating system, consisting
> of free works, and not a place for lawyers-to-be.
> 
> Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the release
> manager in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
> re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date[1]. Of
> course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
> policy.

Objection. Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat. I
interpret the first paragraph above to mean that we should not release
with GFDL documentation in main, since that is the obviously correct
path; doing otherwise would serve neither our users nor the free
software community, as it would engender acceptance of a license which
is antithetical to both.

With this in mind, the contradiction inherant in this resolution can
only be interpreted as equivalent to "The DFSG is hereby rendered
impotent for all practical purposes; anything can be included in main
if we feel like it".

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:19:15AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.

"We vote for more money"

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:15:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
> >policy.
> So, if this option passes, the RM could just revert it to the 
> overruled one immediately?

I think I can safely speak for everyone involved in release and archive
management in saying that if the developer body selects a particular
policy by GR, then we won't be changing from whatever that policy may
be in the forseeable future.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Andreas Barth]

* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040601 11:40]:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> > software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We
> > don't intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly
> > believe that, in the long run, their interests are the same.

> That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
> this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
> discussion here?

See the last part of the proposal.

> > For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
> > major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.

> I have no idea why this is being discussed in the context of this
> vote. I suggest that this is an anciliary issue that should be voted
> on separately. [Secretary: is this your understanding as well?]

Because this proposal does speak about what the Social Contract
promises, and the Social Contract does in fact not only speak about
the Free Software Community, but also about our users. A GR that only
speaks about one part of the promises is putting some priorities on
the different promises in the Social Contract.


> > Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the
> > release manager in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
> > re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this
> > date[1]. Of course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust
> > the release policy.

> I would suggest using a positive direction instead of the nebulous
> concept of "overruling the decision". That is, direct the release
> manager to make a release policy along a specific line to resolve
> whatever problem you believe exists in the RM's interpretation of
> policy.

This proposal does very clear adopt a certain policy for the Release.
I can't see any nebulous concept here, and overruling a decision is
very clear, according to 4.1.3 of the Constitution (well, I should
have written "overwrite" instead of "overrule").


> Finally, this resolution seems to conflict with the social contract as
> it stands.

That's your interpretation of the social contract. With my
interpretation of the social contract, proposal F conflicts with the
social contract, as it ignores our users.


> This conflict should be resolved within this proposal by
> recinding appropriate sections of the contract, or inserting specific
> language to the contract itself.

Please accept the fact that any document is conflicting with itself
and/or has holes. Please don't try to convert Debian to a
law-producing company. I'm here to contribute to the great
distribution, and provide as many of our users the possibility to use
free software as possible, and not to make the formal documents as
long as possible.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Andreas Barth]

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040601 11:25]:
> On 2004-06-01 09:19:15 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> >resolution:
 
> Don't you need to sign it?

According to my mail program, it was signed.

> >We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
 
> where not were.

Ack.

> >course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
> >policy.
 
> So, if this option passes, the RM could just revert it to the 
> overruled one immediately?

There are a lot of insane actions that most delegates can do. The
ftp-masters can e.g. decide to remove glibc from the archive (there is
no rule against that). However, I trust them (and also the RM) enough
that they do no harm. Furthermore, Anthony has explicitly asked for a
decision by the TC or by the Developers, and so I expect that he will
accept this decision, and not revert the decision. And there is a good
reason why I wrote that: Please consider the case that some new item
needs to be addresses by our release policy (for example, a GFDL V2) -
do you really want that we do a new GR for each and every change in
the release policy, even if it's just a minor one? I for myself would
consider this too inflexible, and if we want, we can always overrule
any decision by the RM. (And, if somebody thinks any delegate is
obstructing the decisions by the developers, then the clean way would
be in my opinion to replace this delegate, and not to remove useful
tools that somebody doing the task of this delegate may need.)





Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jun 01, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> resolution:
Seconded.


-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [6555 tr7cnnrfx4XGs]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Sam Couter]

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "We vote for more money"

And a pony!
-- 
Sam "Eddie" Couter  |  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Developer|  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:31:21AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Objection. Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat.

Common sense tells me that if the world was flat the horizon would always
be obscured.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:39:10AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Reason: Please be specific what you want. As long as a GR doesn't say
> that it might touch a foundation document, it doesn't do.

It might be nice if the constitution (or some foundation document)
said this.

As it happens, people have rejected some foundation document proposals
(for example, Ian Jackson's) for being overly specific.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Andreas Barth]

* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040601 18:10]:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:39:10AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Reason: Please be specific what you want. As long as a GR doesn't say
> > that it might touch a foundation document, it doesn't do.

> It might be nice if the constitution (or some foundation document)
> said this.

Well, at the moment we definitly need to live with the current status.

In my opinion it's as this:

- If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a foundation
  document, it's ok.
- If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a
  foundation document, it's ok.
- Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore be
  avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable -
  I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.)

Ok?


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Marc Haber]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:19:15AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> resolution:
> 
> --
> Reaffirmation of the social contract - priorities are our users and
> the free software community
> 
> We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We don't
> intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly believe that,
> in the long run, their interests are the same.
> 
> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.
> 
> For the free software community, we promise to use the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines as guidelines for the software that is allowed to
> go in the Distribution ("main" on the ftp-mirrors).
> 
> We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
> these guidelines don't really match. We promise to use our common
> sense in this case to get to an appropriate result. We will use our
> guidelines in a way that serves our users and the free software
> community, and we don't intend to blow our guidelines up to full legal
> texts, because we aim to create the best operating system, consisting
> of free works, and not a place for lawyers-to-be.
> 
> Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the release
> manager in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
> re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date[1]. Of
> course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
> policy.
> 
> [1] still available as today on
> http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt
> --

I second Andi's proposal. Let's release.

Greetings
Marc


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

To: to debian-devel removed

Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040505 14:10]:
> > ---
> > The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
> > and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
> > updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the 'main' or
> > 'contrib' sections which is not free software according to the DFSG.
> > ---
> 
> I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> resolution:

I second the amendment, with the typographical fixes provided in
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
applied.

1) were -> where
2) re-inforce -> reinforce

-- 
John H. Robinson, IV  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http  
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type.  spiders.html  


pgpNmztO3N8sw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Andreas Barth]

* John H. Robinson, IV ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040601 20:55]:
> To: to debian-devel removed
> 
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040505 14:10]:
> > > ---
> > > The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom,
> > > and will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point
> > > updates to stable releases) that contains anything in the 'main' or
> > > 'contrib' sections which is not free software according to the DFSG.
> > > ---
> > 
> > I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> > resolution:
> 
> I second the amendment, with the typographical fixes provided in
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> applied.
> 
> 1) were -> where
> 2) re-inforce -> reinforce

Of course, as these are only typographical fixes, they are of course
accepted by.


Thanks for seconding (also to all others).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


pgpb2T7fwcuiX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040601 11:40]:
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> > > software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We
> > > don't intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly
> > > believe that, in the long run, their interests are the same.
> 
> > That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
> > this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
> > discussion here?
> 
> See the last part of the proposal.

The last part of the proposal only indicates that we will apply
"common sense," which is what we have (hopefully) been doing. That
still doesn't say anything specific about the controversial classes of
work which I assume you are concerned with.
 
> Because this proposal does speak about what the Social Contract
> promises, and the Social Contract does in fact not only speak about
> the Free Software Community, but also about our users. A GR that
> only speaks about one part of the promises is putting some
> priorities on the different promises in the Social Contract.

Yes, but this vote is dealing with the ramifications of GR_003 and
what is included in the next release of Debian, not when the next
release of Debian will (or should) occur . Such a resolution should be
dealt with on its own merits, not cloaked within a resolution dealing
with a totally separate problem.

> This proposal does very clear adopt a certain policy for the
> Release.  I can't see any nebulous concept here, and overruling a
> decision is very clear, according to 4.1.3 of the Constitution
> (well, I should have written "overwrite" instead of "overrule").

You just say that you overrule his decision, without indicating
exactly which classes of work you will allow in that aren't currently
allowed. Hint: Look at the way the tech ctte deals with their
resolutions.

> > Finally, this resolution seems to conflict with the social
> > contract as it stands.
> 
> That's your interpretation of the social contract. With my
> interpretation of the social contract, proposal F conflicts with the
> social contract, as it ignores our users.

I'm at a loss to understand what, if anything, proposal F has to do
with proposal G.

> > This conflict should be resolved within this proposal by recinding
> > appropriate sections of the contract, or inserting specific
> > language to the contract itself.
> 
> Please accept the fact that any document is conflicting with itself
> and/or has holes. Please don't try to convert Debian to a
> law-producing company.

I don't think anyone here is interested in seeing us adopt legalistic
language. However, the resolutions that we do adopt should be clear
and obvious. Laywers thrive in situations where the law is in
conflict. While I don't think we should waste our time searching for
conflicts, when they are obviously apparent, they should be dealt
with.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
I
love
you
 -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:22:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> In my opinion it's as this:
>
> - If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a foundation
>   document, it's ok.

Until the vote is held, it's not reasonable to act on any specific
outcome for the vote -- we can't know whether the winning option will
receive a normal majority.  We can't even know which option will win.

> - If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a
>   foundation document, it's ok.

And if the override is implicitly specified, but not explicitly specified,
then what?

> - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore be
>   avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable -
>   I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.)
>
> Ok?

Even in the absence of any override, a "position of the day" has quite
a bit of force -- it just needs to not explicitly conflict with any
foundation documents.  Ambiguities in documents give a fair degree
of latitude.

That said, I don't think that discussing what proposals which have not
yet been voted on might mean is "noise".  I think that if we had had more
talk of the potential implications in discussion period for the last GR
that we wouldn't have people wanting another GR to "fix the problem".

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

[Ian Jackson]

I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread
along the following lines:

  I hereby propose that we eviscerate the current resolution and
  replace it with the following:

Title: Reaffirmation of Our Fundamental Principles and Documents

We the Developers reaffirm our fundamental principles.

We therefore conclude that the chef-in-charge should follow the
fundamental document regarding whether to use garlic.  Of course
the chef-in-charge is in charge of the recipies.

  (... various clueful people intervene ...)

  What do you mean it's ambiguous and vague ?  But the Fundamental
  Documents are completely unambiguous and support my view of the
  Status Quo that garlic tastes nice.

  (... clueful people have another go ...)

  But it is clear as the light of day that our Fundamental Documents
  say that garlic is nice !  There is no need to say any more in our
  resolution.

Now of course I have an opinion about what the Social Contract says
and I think people who disagree either have poor reading comprehension
or an axe to grind, or both.  No doubt people on both sides of this
argument feel similarly.

But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities (`what does
the Social Contract mean') as opposed to the moral/practical issues
(`should we release Sarge in this state, or delay') !

It is also no excuse for vague and useless resolutions !


This discussion would be greatly assisted if people made a real effort
to:

* Say clearly why they think Sarge should be released as is, or why it
  should be delayed - _without reference to the Social Contract_ other
  than to discuss its underlying principles in the vaguest of terms.

  Remember that if you want to convince people about whether Sarge
  _should_ be released you have to convince _both_ people who think
  the amended Social Contract forbids it, and those who think it does
  not.

* If you are writing a resolution intended to result in sarge being
  released, make it say so very clearly - and in particular, make it
  clearly answer any criticisms of vagueness or ambiguity.  One of the
  main reasons we're in this mess is because of a perception of
  ambiguity.  A resolution which doesn't clear the problem up is
  useless.

  In particular, any resolution intended to result in sarge being
  released should clearly state that it intends to waive any provision
  of the Social Contract which would prevent the release of sarge.

  Whether or not it requires a 3:1 majority is a matter of
  interpretation of the constitution.  The power to adjudicate
  disputes about interpreting the constitution is given to the
  Secretary in 7.1(3).  (There is no provision for the Developers to
  overrule the Secretary, so you can't `interpret away' this problem
  by GR.)


If people carry on treating the Social Contract like some kind of holy
bible - ie always arguing from it, rather than talking about what it
should say - I'll be in serious danger of turning this thread into an
eternal roving gun/abortion/god/speech flamewar just to demonstrate
how silly you all are.


Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:11:21 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:38:47PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> While we're on the subject of interpretations, the first clause
>> ("The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on
>> freedom") constitutes a position statement about an issue of the
>> day, under 4.1.5. Anybody who tries to give it a stronger meaning
>> is invited to stop being a dick.

> That meaning is plenty strong as it is.

> "Position of the day statements can overrule foundation documents if
> they achieve a 3:1 majority" seems to be a valid interpetation of
> the constitution.

Only if the intent was so stated at the start of voting,
 since the voters intent may be affected by whether they felt a
 foundation document was being overruled.

I would not like to have foundation docs bein
 serendipitously being overturned by a simple non 3:1 requiring GR.

manoj
-- 
When you're in command, command. Admiral Nimitz
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:19:10 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:22:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> In my opinion it's as this:
>>
>> - If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a
>>   foundation
>> document, it's ok.

> Until the vote is held, it's not reasonable to act on any specific
> outcome for the vote -- we can't know whether the winning option
> will receive a normal majority.  We can't even know which option
> will win.

Quite. But some options are marked as having majority
 requirements, I think it is reasonable to expect that any option that
 could overrule a foundation document be required to state that
 majority requirement up front.

>> - If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a
>> foundation document, it's ok.

> And if the override is implicitly specified, but not explicitly
> specified, then what?

I think that is a grey area, and would much rather not go
 there. Let us specify the intent up front, can't we?

>> - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore
>>   be
>> avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable -
>> I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.)
>>
>> Ok?

> Even in the absence of any override, a "position of the day" has
> quite a bit of force -- it just needs to not explicitly conflict
> with any foundation documents.  Ambiguities in documents give a fair
> degree of latitude.

I have no problem with this.

manoj

-- 
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of
rubbish into it. William Orton
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]