Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Luk Claes]

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
>> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an 
>> update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
> 
> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...

Well, I think it's wrong to force the vote to be about changing the FD
when the proposer and the seconders agreed that it should not.

Note that you don't know if there would be another vote needed as one
cannot know beforehand if the vote would pass or not.

Note also that it might be easier to get a position statement than to
find appropriate wording and support to change the FD.

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Mon May 04 11:50, Ben Finney wrote:
> No. I'm saying that there *are* such mechanisms, as pointed out earlier.
> If a GR informs positive action but it's okay to interpret it as
> “non-binding”, then we don't have a good basis for preventing actions
> in contradiction to the GR. If, on the other hand, we say that GR *is*
> binding, then actions that contradict it are harmful and can be stopped
> on that basis.
 
Indeed, and I think the constitution  is pretty clear that they _are_
binding, as I posted upthread:

Constitution  2.1.1: 
   
   "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
   work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
   has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
   However, they must not actively work against these rules and
   decisions properly made under them."

Any GR is clearly "a decision properly made under them" and therefore
"they must not actively work against [it]". That sounds pretty binding
to me.

> One of the prevalent themes in these discussions is that it isn't even
> close to universal in the project what is “obviously stupid” and what
> isn't. That's why we have decision-making systems.
 
Absolutely

Matt
-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> Ben Finney  writes:
> > By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's
> > interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally valid.
> > The GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going
> > through the GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the
> > decision?
> 
> Because people treat them seriously and follow them voluntarily even
> if they don't personally agree.

And if they're not convinced? Either the GR is binding or it's not. You
say it's not; but if that's the case, when a person acts in
contradiction to such a GR, what basis does anyone else have for telling
them to stop?

If, on the other hand, the person's actions are prevented on the basis
of the GR, what sense is there in saying that the GR is non-binding?

> It feels to me like you're insisting on adding mechanisms to force
> poeple to do things into the process that simply aren't necessary
> historically.

No. I'm saying that there *are* such mechanisms, as pointed out earlier.
If a GR informs positive action but it's okay to interpret it as
“non-binding”, then we don't have a good basis for preventing actions
in contradiction to the GR. If, on the other hand, we say that GR *is*
binding, then actions that contradict it are harmful and can be stopped
on that basis.

Does this mean GRs are serious and should be worded carefully? Of
course; but I thought we knew that already.

> I would really rather focus on solving the problems that we actually
> have, rather than theoretical problems that assume fellow DDs are
> going to do obviously stupid things.

One of the prevalent themes in these discussions is that it isn't even
close to universal in the project what is “obviously stupid” and what
isn't. That's why we have decision-making systems.

-- 
 \   “I was in a bar the other night, hopping from barstool to |
  `\ barstool, trying to get lucky, but there wasn't any gum under |
_o__)   any of them.” —Emo Philips |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> And if someone doing the work is not persuaded by this?

> What if one of the many who do *not* find that GR to be persuasive is
> in the position to reject a package containing FDL-licensed work, and
> does so on the basis that their interpretation of the DFSG and FDL
> mean that the package is not free?

Then you talk to that person and point out that their opinion is not
shared with the rest of the project, with the GR as strong evidence.  If
that isn't sufficient, that's what the delegate override is for, but in
practice it would never come to that, since if the GR passed, a delegate
override is going to pass too.  Plus, it's never going to come up in
anywhere near that clear-cut of a fashion.

> By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's
> interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally
> valid. The GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going
> through the GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the
> decision?

Because people treat them seriously and follow them voluntarily even if
they don't personally agree.  It feels to me like you're insisting on
adding mechanisms to force poeple to do things into the process that
simply aren't necessary historically.  I would really rather focus on
solving the problems that we actually have, rather than theoretical
problems that assume fellow DDs are going to do obviously stupid things.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> Matthew Johnson  writes:
> 
> > Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is 
> > free", 1:1)
> 
> Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be binding
> since the people who were doing the work didn't think it contradicted
> the DFSG. That's the best use of project policy statements, I think:
> they're highly persuasive to the people doing the work.

And if someone doing the work is not persuaded by this?

What if one of the many who do *not* find that GR to be persuasive is in
the position to reject a package containing FDL-licensed work, and does
so on the basis that their interpretation of the DFSG and FDL mean that
the package is not free?

By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's
interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally valid. The
GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going through the
GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the decision?

-- 
 \ “I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate |
  `\   revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up |
_o__)  to him real quick and hand it to him.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Matthew Johnson  writes:

> Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is 
> free", 1:1)

Non-binding position statement.  It doesn't really need to be binding
since the people who were doing the work didn't think it contradicted
the DFSG.  That's the best use of project policy statements, I think:
they're highly persuasive to the people doing the work.

> http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", 
> 1:1)

Delegate override.  That was pretty clearly a delegate override at the
time.  It explicitly reversed a decision made by a delegate.

> http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1)

Hm.  Not sure about this one.

> These aren't in your list of "things which are binding GRs", but I
> think they should be something we can vote on and they should be
> binding. Possibly this means the constitution is deficient in this
> area.

For the last, yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that.  It does feel
like a binding 1:1 majority decision.  It feels kind of odd that a
decision of that magnitude can be made with a 1:1 majority vote when
things that have less significant impact on the project require 3:1
majorities.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Sun May 03 06:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do
> > see 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on
> > anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a
> > task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do
> > it.  However, they must not actively work against these rules and
> > decisions properly made under them."
> 
> > This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
> > way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
> > to do the work)
> 
> Well, "position statements about issues of the day" are obviously
> non-binding, so I guess we're disagreeing over "nontechnical policy
> documents and statements" other than those.  The constitution offers the
> examples of "documents describing the goals of the project, its
> relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
> policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software
> must meet."  The first two sound pretty non-binding to me, and the
> latter is the DFSG, for which foundation document rules apply.
> 
> Am I missing something?

Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:

http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is 
free", 1:1)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", 1:1)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1)

to pick some examples. These aren't  in your list of "things which are
binding GRs", but I think they should be something we can vote on and
they should be binding. Possibly this means the constitution is
deficient in this area.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Matthew Johnson  writes:
> On Sun May 03 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Hm.  Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for.  Most of the classes of
>> binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me.  Binding GRs
>> are:

>> * Appoint or recall the Project Leader
>> * Make or override a DPL or delegate decision
>> * Make or override a tech-ctte decision (2:1)
>> * Modify foundation documents (3:1)
>> * Make decisions about property held in trust by Debian
>> * Appoint a secretary

>> I'd say that everything else is non-binding, specifically including
>> anything passed under point 5 that doesn't modify a foundation document.

> Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do
> see 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on
> anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a
> task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do
> it.  However, they must not actively work against these rules and
> decisions properly made under them."

> This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
> way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
> to do the work)

Well, "position statements about issues of the day" are obviously
non-binding, so I guess we're disagreeing over "nontechnical policy
documents and statements" other than those.  The constitution offers the
examples of "documents describing the goals of the project, its
relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software
must meet."  The first two sound pretty non-binding to me, and the
latter is the DFSG, for which foundation document rules apply.

Am I missing something?

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Sun May 03 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hm.  Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for.  Most of the classes of
> binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me.  Binding GRs
> are:
> 
> * Appoint or recall the Project Leader
> * Make or override a DPL or delegate decision
> * Make or override a tech-ctte decision (2:1)
> * Modify foundation documents (3:1)
> * Make decisions about property held in trust by Debian
> * Appoint a secretary
> 
> I'd say that everything else is non-binding, specifically including
> anything passed under point 5 that doesn't modify a foundation document.

Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do
see 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone
to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task
which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions
properly made under them."

This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
to do the work)

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Matthew Johnson  writes:
> On Sat May 02 19:36, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're
>> explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any
>> of our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides
>> what does and does not modify foundation documents, which in practice
>> is identical to defining a body that states what the foundation
>> documents mean for all developers.

> In all cases this is required. In your case, it's needed to determine
> whether an option is binding or not. After all, if something does not
> conflict with a foundation document at all, passing it by simple
> majority is binding, whereas if it does conflict then it is not.

> To put it another way, who decides whether to demand the author chose
> between non-binding and 3:1, if they think it's not conflicting.

Hm.  Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for.  Most of the classes of
binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me.  Binding GRs
are:

* Appoint or recall the Project Leader
* Make or override a DPL or delegate decision
* Make or override a tech-ctte decision (2:1)
* Modify foundation documents (3:1)
* Make decisions about property held in trust by Debian
* Appoint a secretary

I'd say that everything else is non-binding, specifically including
anything passed under point 5 that doesn't modify a foundation document.

Which of those categories a GR falls into is going to be wholly obvious
from the GR except the boundary between overriding a decision and
modifying a foundation document.  That seems to be the interesting case,
and yeah, thinking about it for a moment, I can't see a clear way to
always distinguish between those cases.

So yes, this is a good point.  I agree with you; we're going to need
someone to decide no matter what (unless we drop the supermajority
requirements entirely).

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Sat May 02 19:36, Russ Allbery wrote:

> I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're
> explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any of
> our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides what
> does and does not modify foundation documents, which in practice is
> identical to defining a body that states what the foundation documents
> mean for all developers.

In all cases this is required. In your case, it's needed to determine
whether an option is binding or not. After all, if something does not
conflict with a foundation document at all, passing it by simple
majority is binding, whereas if it does conflict then it is not.

To put it another way, who decides whether to demand the author chose
between non-binding and 3:1, if they think it's not conflicting.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:
> Russ Allbery  writes:
>> Ben Finney  writes:
>>> Russ Allbery  writes:

>>> So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation
>>> documents”refers to a different set of documents depending on who
>>> is being asked?

>> No.  That's an absurd interpretation of what I said.

> Yet I can't disambiguate it from this:

> I presume this is referring to the practice of leaving the
> determination to each individual person acting. Which, in effect, is
> allowing that the foundation documents have a different meaning for
> each person and none of them are wrong.

Yup.  If there's no project 3:1 majority about what the foundation
documents mean in a specific case, that is indeed the case.

This is not the same thing as using completely different documents.

This happens in law all the time.  That's one of the big reasons why
nations have a court system: resolving disputes between people with
different competing legal interpretations of the law.  It's not
equivalent to everyone having a completely different legal code.

Maybe an analogy would help.  I'm pointing out that people have a bunch
of different philosophical beliefs about the nature of the world, and
what you're saying sounds to me like arguing that's equivalent to belief
in solipsism.  No, it's not.  Disagreement is not the same thing as lack
of any common basis for discussion whatsoever.

> Where have I misunderstood you, and how do you resolve this apparent
> absurdity?

I don't see any absurdity.  I see a dispute which doesn't have the
required majority to resolve one way or the other.  Your interpretation
doesn't magically win despite not having a 3:1 majority just because you
think it's obvious, and neither does mine.

There are two ways to deal with that.  Either we say that in that case
we simply cannot make any binding decision and proceed on the basis of
everyone doing the best that they can in their own work, which is what
we currently do, or we create a position that is empowered to determine
what the foundation documents mean for everyone (like a court does in a
conventional legal system).

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> Ben Finney  writes:
> > Russ Allbery  writes:
> >> Ben Finney  writes:
> 
> >>> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
> >>> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
> >>> with being false for other people?
> 
> >> Of course it can be!  That would only not be true if we had unanimity
> >> over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,
> 
> > So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation
> > documents”refers to a different set of documents depending on who
> > is being asked?
> 
> No.  That's an absurd interpretation of what I said.

Yet I can't disambiguate it from this:

> > The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing
> > hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents.
> > If, on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination,
> > someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions
> > depend on it.
> 
> And who makes that decision has already been explained at *ridiculous*
> length on this mailing list, so I'll assume you already know how that
> works.

I presume this is referring to the practice of leaving the determination
to each individual person acting. Which, in effect, is allowing that the
foundation documents have a different meaning for each person and none
of them are wrong.

Where have I misunderstood you, and how do you resolve this apparent
absurdity?

-- 
 \“The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. |
  `\ It's absolutely not.” —Bill Gates, 1995-10-23 |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Matthew Johnson  writes:

> I was trying to demonstrate that there are things which are in
> conflict with a foundation document and that something needs to be
> done about vote options which are such conflicts but don't explicitly
> amend that document.

Oh, okay, sorry.  Yes, I do agree with that.

> The solution could be as you say that they are therefore non-binding
> (although I don't see that is is a _useful_ solution, see Don and
> Manoj's posts to this thread, it's at least _consistent).

I've posted in the past why I think it's useful, but I'm assuming people
have seen that and just don't agree with it.  It's certainly not as
useful as making a binding 3:1 decision, but there are cases where we
*can't* make a 3:1 decision because no option has a 3:1 majority.

> It could be that they need 3:1 to pass whether they are explicit
> modifications to the document or not (which is what I always thought
> was the case), or it could be that they are binding even without a
> super majority (and it's this view I was trying to address here.
>
> All of these are consistent views held by several of the contributors
> to the various threads, and all of them consider that to be what the
> status quo is. I wish to clarify it one way or another

I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're
explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any of
our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides what
does and does not modify foundation documents, which in practice is
identical to defining a body that states what the foundation documents
mean for all developers.

I just want to be sure that we don't separate those two out, since if we
do we're not going to solve the problem.  We're just shuffling it
around.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:
> Russ Allbery  writes:
>> Ben Finney  writes:

>>> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
>>> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
>>> with being false for other people?

>> Of course it can be!  That would only not be true if we had unanimity
>> over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,

> So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation documents”
> refers to a different set of documents depending on who is being asked?

No.  That's an absurd interpretation of what I said.

>> or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical
>> meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which
>> similarly we do not.

> To the extent that we need to take different action depending on
> whether a proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, is it not
> true that we need a body with the power to *make decisions* about the
> truth of statements like “this proposal conflicts with the foundation
> documents”?

Apparently not, since the project has survived for over a decade without
one.  It would reduce the number of these sorts of discussions we have
to waste time with on mailing lists, so there would be some benefits,
but it's obviously not something we *need*.

> The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing
> hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. If,
> on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination,
> someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions
> depend on it.

And who makes that decision has already been explained at *ridiculous*
length on this mailing list, so I'll assume you already know how that
works.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> Ben Finney  writes:
> > Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
> > foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
> > with being false for other people?
> 
> Of course it can be!  That would only not be true if we had unanimity
> over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,

So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation documents”
refers to a different set of documents depending on who is being asked?

> or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical
> meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which similarly
> we do not.

To the extent that we need to take different action depending on whether
a proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, is it not true that
we need a body with the power to *make decisions* about the truth of
statements like “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents”?

The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing hinges
on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. If, on the
other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination, someone needs
to *make* that determination in cases where actions depend on it.

-- 
 \ “Holy tintinnabulation, Batman!” —Robin |
  `\   |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, May 02 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Clint Adams  writes:
>> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
>>> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
>
>>> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a
>>> majority, I would contend that you're essentially arguing there's
>>> such a serious disagreement in Debian over this issue that we do not
>>> even share the same language, terms, and basis for discussion.  I
>>> don't see that pessimism supported by any of the previous votes or by
>>> the general discussion here.
>
>> Would your statement still apply if you replace "NVidia drivers" with
>> "non-free kernel firmware"?
>
> Well, part of the dispute is over the definition of non-free.

I thought the whole poing of including the DFSG in the SC was
 that there would be no ambiguity about what the Debian project means
 when it says something is non-free. Let me see how it is phrased:

 We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
 "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
 Guidelines".  



> If one defines non-free as non-compliant with the DFSG, then such a
> statement would be internally contradictory.  However, semantics
> aside, for the definition of non-free I'm pretty sure you're using (no
> source available), I think that's basically the GR we passed for the
> release of lenny.  So no.  :)

No. I think it means that the firmware blobs do not meet the
 requirements of the DFSG; and that a work must be legally licensed in
 order to be even considered free.

So, if a work is distributed under the GPL, Debian must be able
 meet the constraints of the GPL in order to further distribute it. That
 means, we must be able to distribute the preferred form of
 modification, as the GPL states we must.

There is also the likelyhood that a number of these firmware
 blobs are actually programs; in which case we need the source code --
 but it is hard to tell which blob is or is not a bunch of instructions
 to a processing unit.

>
>> Since I view those as equivalent, and the latter seems far more
>> dangerous, I do think the pessimism is warranted.
>
> However, for two releases in a row, the project has wanted to release
> with non-source kernel firmware.

Thus the cause for the pessimism. I think we are drifting from
 the social contract, really.


manoj
-- 
Meekness: Uncommon patience in planning a revenge that is worth
while. Ambrose Bierce
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, May 02 2009, s...@powerlinux.fr wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:26:37PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> > > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
>> > 
>> > Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
>> 
>> It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
>> uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to
>> uphold it. [Given the anguish with which we struggle on -project and
>> -vote to figure out what the SC says, it's seems clear that large
>> numbers of us feel that we should be upholding the SC.]
>
> BTW, notice that when we joined debian, we declared that we would adhere
> to the social contract and uphold it, or something such.

Apparently, we all agreed with out fingers crossed behind out
 backs, since the SC seems to mean different things to different people.

Reminds me of the tory fro the MahaBharata: 
  Loudly, "Aswasthama's dead."  (Aside, sotto voce: "Aswasthama the
  elephant". Perhaps this too will cost us a trip through purgatory,
  like it did Yudhishtar.

manoj
 P.S.
 Without common cause, even words written in one language can seem like
 Babel.  We apparently no longer have common cause.
-- 
Neither spread the germs of gossip nor encourage others to do so.
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Clint Adams  writes:
> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
>> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.

>> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a
>> majority, I would contend that you're essentially arguing there's
>> such a serious disagreement in Debian over this issue that we do not
>> even share the same language, terms, and basis for discussion.  I
>> don't see that pessimism supported by any of the previous votes or by
>> the general discussion here.

> Would your statement still apply if you replace "NVidia drivers" with
> "non-free kernel firmware"?

Well, part of the dispute is over the definition of non-free.  If one
defines non-free as non-compliant with the DFSG, then such a statement
would be internally contradictory.  However, semantics aside, for the
definition of non-free I'm pretty sure you're using (no source
available), I think that's basically the GR we passed for the release of
lenny.  So no.  :)

> Since I view those as equivalent, and the latter seems far more
> dangerous, I do think the pessimism is warranted.

However, for two releases in a row, the project has wanted to release
with non-source kernel firmware.

I think this gets to the heart of the current conflict: the people who
"lost" the previous two votes would like a 3:1 majority be required to
do the same thing again, since it keeps passing with a 1:1 majority.
It's certainly a reasonable position.  (Hopefully we now have a
technological solution to prevent that specific problem from coming up
again, but a similar one will doubtless arise in the future.)

I think the summary of my position is that we need to either:

* Affirm the current governance process in the constitution and
  recognize that in the absence of a 3:1 majority one direction or
  another, individual developers are going to make possibly-conflicting
  decisions about what the DFSG and SC mean and may express those
  interpretations via non-binding 1:1 majority position statements, OR

* Amend the constitution to create an officer of the project whose job
  it is to determine the canonical meaning of the foundation documents
  for all developers.

In other words, we either need to affirm the current arrangement for
"who decides" or we need to change "who decides."  Trying to do anything
else with this without addressing the core question of "who decides"
essentially means pretending we all think the foundation documents mean
the same thing, which they clearly don't.

(Well, eliminating the 3:1 majority requirement is a third solution,
basically moving "who decides" to the project via GR with a 1:1
majority, but I think that's a bad solution.)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Sat May 02 07:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To recap, the counter-argument is that such a *non-binding* position
> statement is obviously nonsensical and hence people aren't going to
> follow it even if it passes, which it won't because it's non-sensical.
> In other words, you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument in a place
> where there are other controls.  If a majority of people in Debian voted
> for a non-binding position statement that so obviously, clearly, and
> directly contradicts a foundation document, we have considerably more
> problems than the question of a supermajority.

Sorry if it looks like I was ignoring that Russ, I wasn't (and I
presented, I hope, your view in one of the options on my proposed
ballot).

I was trying to demonstrate that there are things which are in conflict
with a foundation document and that something needs to be done about
vote options which are such conflicts but don't explicitly amend that
document.

The solution could be as you say that they are therefore non-binding
(although I don't see that is is a _useful_ solution, see Don and
 Manoj's posts to this thread, it's at least _consistent). It could be
that they need 3:1 to pass whether they are explicit modifications to
the document or not (which is what I always thought was the case), or
it could be that they are binding even without a super majority (and
it's this view I was trying to address here.

All of these are consistent views held by several of the contributors to
the various threads, and all of them consider that to be what the status
quo is. I wish to clarify it one way or another

> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
> I would contend that you're essentially arguing there's such a serious
> disagreement in Debian over this issue that we do not even share the
> same language, terms, and basis for discussion.  I don't see that
> pessimism supported by any of the previous votes or by the general
> discussion here.

No, I wouldn't expect that vote to pass, however, the point of the
example was to demonstrate that it definitely contradicts the DFSG.
There are arguments that kernel firmware doesn't, that's fine, but it
wasn't the point I was making, so I wanted an example which was clear.
All I was trying to demonstrate was to provide an example of a vote
which is clearly contradictory to a foundation document, but did not
modify it.

Votes in practice will be closer to the line, of course.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Clint Adams]

On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
> consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
> 
> If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
> I would contend that you're essentially arguing there's such a serious
> disagreement in Debian over this issue that we do not even share the
> same language, terms, and basis for discussion.  I don't see that
> pessimism supported by any of the previous votes or by the general
> discussion here.

Would your statement still apply if you replace "NVidia drivers" with
"non-free kernel firmware"?  Since I view those as equivalent, and
the latter seems far more dangerous, I do think the pessimism is
warranted.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Matthew Johnson  writes:

> I think that is somewhat of an orthogonal issue. I don't think anyone
> would disagree that the vote:
>
>We agree to ship the nvidia binary drivers in main
>
> conflicts with one of the foundation documents. At the moment, however,
> we could run that vote and since it doesn't explicitly modify one of the
> foundation documents, it would only require a simple majority. Now, if
> people think that a simple majority should be able to decide this, then
> fine, but drop the 3:1 requirement from the constitution. 

I have to say, I'm finding it rather frustrating that people keep
repeating this argument without apparently acknowledging that it's been
addressed.  If you don't agree with the response to this argument,
that's fine, but not acknowledging the rebuttal is getting on my nerves.
(It's possible, though, that you've just not seen the previous
discussion for whatever reason.)

To recap, the counter-argument is that such a *non-binding* position
statement is obviously nonsensical and hence people aren't going to
follow it even if it passes, which it won't because it's non-sensical.
In other words, you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument in a place
where there are other controls.  If a majority of people in Debian voted
for a non-binding position statement that so obviously, clearly, and
directly contradicts a foundation document, we have considerably more
problems than the question of a supermajority.

Furthermore, I think there's general consensus even among those of us
who believe that non-binding position statements should not require a
supermajority that such non-binding position statements should, if
ambiguous, have to clearly state whether they're modifying a foundation
document or whether they're non-binding before they go to a vote.  The
vote would therefore be on a position statement saying something like:

The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.

If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
I would contend that you're essentially arguing there's such a serious
disagreement in Debian over this issue that we do not even share the
same language, terms, and basis for discussion.  I don't see that
pessimism supported by any of the previous votes or by the general
discussion here.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:
> Matthew Johnson  writes:
>> On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:

>>> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
>>> project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

> This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in
> conflict with the foundation documents “for some people”.
>
> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with
> being false for other people?

Of course it can be!  That would only not be true if we had unanimity
over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,
or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical
meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which similarly
we do not.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, May 02 2009, Ben Finney wrote:

> That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone
> in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group.
>
> I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all
> new members to declare they will uphold it.

Such was my understanding as well.

manoj
-- 
Cheit's Lament: If you help a friend in need, he is sure to remember
you-- the next time he's in need.
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney]

Matthew Johnson  writes:

> On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
> > project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in
conflict with the foundation documents “for some people”.

Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with
being false for other people?

[…]

> If the project thinks [proposals which conflict the foundation
> documents, but don't say so explicitly] _should_ require 3:1 then I
> would like that enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't
> have to resign over it as well, next time this comes up. If that is
> the case, then of course we also need to decide who makes that
> decision. you say "for the entire project"---surely a position
> statement conflicts with a FD or it doesn't, whole project or no.

Absolutely agreed with this. We may not agree on *whether* a given
proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, but (unless we want to
have the ludicrous notion that the conflict both exists and does not
exist) someone needs to decide which is the case in order to determine
whether a supermajority requirement applies.

-- 
 \  “I like to skate on the other side of the ice.” —Steven Wright |
  `\   |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


pgpNeLLfIV0XM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an 
> > > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
> 
> > I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
> > statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
> > the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
> > place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
> 
> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
> a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

I think that is somewhat of an orthogonal issue. I don't think anyone
would disagree that the vote: 

   We agree to ship the nvidia binary drivers in main

conflicts with one of the foundation documents. At the moment, however,
we could run that vote and since it doesn't explicitly modify one of the
foundation documents, it would only require a simple majority. Now, if
people think that a simple majority should be able to decide this, then
fine, but drop the 3:1 requirement from the constitution. 

If the project thinks this _should_ require 3:1 then I would like that
enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't have to resign over
it as well, next time this comes up. If that is the case, then of course
we also need to decide who makes that decision. you say "for the entire
project"---surely a position statement conflicts with a FD or it
doesn't, whole project or no.

Matt
-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
> > 
> > Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
> 
> It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
> uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to
> uphold it.

That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone
in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group.

I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all
new members to declare they will uphold it.

-- 
 \  “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access |
  `\  to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet |
_o__) highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
> 
> Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.

It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to
uphold it. [Given the anguish with which we struggle on -project and
-vote to figure out what the SC says, it's seems clear that large
numbers of us feel that we should be upholding the SC.]

> > As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the
> > position statement in carrying out their duties (though they can
> > of course be overridden by GR.)
> 
> Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any majority
> to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements? nifty.

Sure. If we as a project are headed towards self-destruction, there's
really no way for the constitution to stop us. We always have to fall
back on the continued desire of developers to work together to create
the most technically excellent, free operating system possible.


Don Armstrong

-- 
This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related
program activities, and the letter G.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
 A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
 position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
 foundation document.
>>> [...]
>>>
 So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
 disagrees with above interpretations?
>>> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
>>> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
>>> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
>>> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
>>> or the constitution.
>>
>>> Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.
>>
>> If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
>>  document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
>>  you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
>>  around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
>>  proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?
>
> Of course not. If a position statement contradicts a foundation
> document it's time to update the foundation document accordingly or
> drop the position statement again.

Err, so why not do it in one pass? Why this strange two pass
 vote?

How do you want to handle the case where a 51% majority wants
 the position, but no more than that? There is not enough votes to
 actually change the foundation docs in that case.

>
>> That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
>>  foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
>>  with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?
>
> You do realise that a majority needs to agree with it before it turns
> into a position statement?

Sure. A bare majority, let us suppose.

> It's not because a position statement is not binding that a foundation
> document would also not be binding...

So why do you think the foundation document is not binding? (I
 must confess to having some problems parsing this statement).


>> if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
>>  contradiction of a foundation document mean?
>
> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get
> an update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

Why this torturous path? Why not see if there are actually votes
 to change the FD, rather than creating and dropping position
 statements? 


>> Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
>>  used in a  foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
>>  foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
>>  over FD?
>
> This is actually asking if a position statement can clarify a
> foundation document but put in a twisted way AFAICS...

If by clarifying, youmean redefining all the words, sure.

>
>> How binding _are_ the foundation documents?
>
> Interesting question as you seem to be one to take the Constitution
> with a twisted interpretation when it fits you best in some previous
> occasions.

Aha. The first attack on the man, rather than the contents of my
 arguments. Jesus, it sure did not take long  for the conversation to
 descend to the pits.


>
>>  free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
>>  distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
>>morning 8:00am"
>>  Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march
>
> I guess this is a bad attempt at a joke?

What joke? That might me my "interpretation", or, as you put it,
 the "clarification" of the SC.

manoj
-- 
In my experience, if you have to keep the lavatory door shut by
extending your left leg, it's modern architecture.  -- Nancy Banks Smith
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an 
>> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
>
>> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
>> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
>> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
>> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
>
> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
> a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

Does anyone have authority, a posteriori, to declare that any
 given position statement is in contradiction of a foundation document?

Or is it only deliverable by a GR?

This will be interesting. So, in order to determine whether a
 foundation document is being modified, we first ask the  project, via a
 GR, whether it is indeed a contradiction. _THEN_ we hold a vote, with
 or without the 3:1 majority, based o the previous vote, to see if it
 passes or not.

I think Joey Hess is right.

manoj
-- 
Program: Any assignment that cannot be completed with one telephone
call. Kelvin Throop III, "The Management Dictionary"
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:


> Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.

Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.

> Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
> reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation documents
> actually mean. A position statement about the foundation documents
> only serves to state what a majority of the project thinks the
> documents say; it doesn't change what the documents actually say.[1]
>
> As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the position
> statement in carrying out their duties (though they can of course be
> overridden by GR.)

I think I can live with that.

Wait.

Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any
 majority to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements?
 nifty.

manoj
-- 
Behind every great man, there is a woman -- urging him on. Harry Mudd,
"I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an 
> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...

No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an 
> update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...

Matt
-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation document
> (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are you
> saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
> around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
> proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?

No. I'm in fact saying that developers can ignore the position
statement on that basis.

> if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
> contradiction of a foundation document mean?

Next to no value, as far as I'm concerned.

> How binding _are_ the foundation documents?

Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.

Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation documents
actually mean. A position statement about the foundation documents
only serves to state what a majority of the project thinks the
documents say; it doesn't change what the documents actually say.[1]

As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the position
statement in carrying out their duties (though they can of course be
overridden by GR.)


Don Armstrong

1: Fundamentally though, I find the whole process of making position
statements about the foundation documents tedious. If you think the
documents meaning is unclear, propose amendments to the documents to
make them clearer.
-- 
I really wanted to talk to her.
I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit.
 -- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Luk Claes]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:


On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:

A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.

[...]


So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?

The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
or the constitution.



Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.


If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
 document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
 you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
 around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
 proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?


Of course not. If a position statement contradicts a foundation document 
it's time to update the foundation document accordingly or drop the 
position statement again.



That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
 foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
 with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?


You do realise that a majority needs to agree with it before it turns 
into a position statement?


It's not because a position statement is not binding that a foundation 
document would also not be binding...



if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
 contradiction of a foundation document mean?


It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get 
an update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.



Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
 used in a  foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
 foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
 over FD?


This is actually asking if a position statement can clarify a foundation 
document but put in a twisted way AFAICS...



How binding _are_ the foundation documents?


Interesting question as you seem to be one to take the Constitution with 
a twisted interpretation when it fits you best in some previous occasions.



 free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
 distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
   morning 8:00am"
 Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march


I guess this is a bad attempt at a joke?

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
>> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
>> foundation document.
>
> [...]
>
>> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
>> disagrees with above interpretations?
>
> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
> or the constitution.

> Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.

If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
 document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
 you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
 around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
 proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?

That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
 foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
 with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?

if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
 contradiction of a foundation document mean?

Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
 used in a  foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
 foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
 over FD?

How binding _are_ the foundation documents?

manoj
 free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
 distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
   morning 8:00am"
 Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march

-- 
Actors will happen in the best-regulated families.
Manoj Srivastava    
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Luk Claes]

Matthew Johnson wrote:

On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:

So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?

The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
or the constitution.


Indeed and there is the case of temporary exceptions. Does saying "we
will release with non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation
document? I would say yes. Does saying "we will release Lenny with
non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation document? There seems to
be less agreement on this. I think it does, but the previous discussion
showed that some people disagree.


This always sounds very awkward to me. So if we would just not fix bugs 
about non-free stuff everything is ok, but if we want to release it has 
either to be fixed very quickly or get a vote that modifies a foundation 
document? Sorry, but I did not and will not agree with that.


We will not release with random non-free stuff, nor will we release with 
easily fixable non-free stuff, nor will we release with non-free stuff 
where it's clear that upstream does not care in fixing it. We will 
release with non-free stuff that does not get fixed in time where 
upsteam is working on it though.


I don't see why this would need any vote, though if you really think 
it's useful to have a vote on this, so be it.


Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Matthew Johnson]

On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
> > disagrees with above interpretations?
> 
> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
> or the constitution.

Indeed and there is the case of temporary exceptions. Does saying "we
will release with non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation
document? I would say yes. Does saying "we will release Lenny with
non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation document? There seems to
be less agreement on this. I think it does, but the previous discussion
showed that some people disagree.

Anyway, I'm going to try and push that discussion a bit more in a
couple of hours, so probably best to discuss in that context

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
> foundation document.

[...]

> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
> disagrees with above interpretations?

The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
or the constitution.

Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.

Furthermore, the statements must be non-technical.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster.
 -- Anthony Towns

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Luk Claes]

Hi

There seem to be some disagreements about the terms in the subject. As 
far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear though and would not need any 
vote to clarify:


Overriding is only used in combination with decisions. You cannot 
override a document or its interpretation/meaning. You can only override 
a DD's (or delegate's) decision.


Amending is changing something written like a foundation document or a 
proposal. As far as I can see you can only amend explicitly so there 
should be no confusion.


A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the 
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a 
foundation document.


Supersession of a Foundation Document is replacing a Foundation Document 
with another version: introduce a new one, ammend one or remove one.


According to the Debian Constitution there is only a 3:1 majority needed 
to ammend the Constitution or supersede a Foundation Document.


So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone disagrees 
with above interpretations?


Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement' [Was: Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny]

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > 
> > I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
> > seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
> > in some document.  But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
> > an option that doesn't do so.  So that would be option 2 above.
> 
> Yeah, this is what I think too, but Manoj got a lot of flack about it,
> hence why I want to make it explicit.

It depends what "some document" means. If it's a foundation document, then
it's all wrong for me. If it's some external document that explains how
we interpret the foundation documents, then it's ok.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement' [Was: Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny]

[Matthew Johnson]

On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 
> I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
> seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
> in some document.  But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
> an option that doesn't do so.  So that would be option 2 above.

Yeah, this is what I think too, but Manoj got a lot of flack about it,
hence why I want to make it explicit.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement' [Was: Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny]

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:03:08PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
> is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
> 
> On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote: 
> > Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'
> > 
> > When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents, 
> > but
> > doesn't explicitly amend it; does this count as amending it? If it does not,
> > then how is this reconciled with the fact that we have just agreed to do
> > something which would contravene our own foundation documents?
> > 
> > Positions (in no particular order):
> > 
> > 1 The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it 
> > doesn't
> >   matter what the difference is.
> > 2 Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that
> >   specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always 
> > needs
> >   3:1.
> > 3 Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual 
> > delegates/
> >   developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they 
> > see
> >   fit.
> > 4 The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG
> >   issues if it's needed for things to work.
> > 5 Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes 
> > do
> 
> Currently it seems that people think we are either in option 2 or option
> 5, but I've heard views for the others. The goal of this discussion is
> to amend the constitution to make it clear which option we want.
> 
> If we drop the super-majority completely (1) this renders options 2, 4,
> and 5 moot. Option 3 renders everything moot.
> 
> I think we are (and should be) in 2, but please, please give me your
> views.

As secretary, it's now basicly up to me to decide that.  The
constituion has this to say about it:

   The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and
   reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the
   Developers.

And if there is no consensus, I will have to decide for myself.  I
prefer a clear consensus on this, and I think the only way to get
that by changing the constitution.

What this is about is how to interprete 4.1.5 of the constitution
which says:
5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
   statements.
   These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
   relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
   policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
   software must meet.
   They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
 1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
 2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian Social
Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
 3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its
supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and existing
ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation Documents in
this constitution.

I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document.  But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option that doesn't do so.  So that would be option 2 above.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org