Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
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
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
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
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
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
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
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
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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 r...@debian.org writes: Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org 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 r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au 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
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
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org 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
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 sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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 ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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 mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
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
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 sch...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
On Sat, May 02 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: Clint Adams sch...@debian.org 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 sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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 r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au 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
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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 mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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 r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au 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
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
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
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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
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 sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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
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 sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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
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
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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' [Was: Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny]
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]
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
