Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied the
proposal belo
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
> | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social
> | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future;
> | _AND_ the social contract
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
>> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
>> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
>> the ft
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, DPL interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, secretary interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, tech ctte interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, individuals interpret
[ ] The Social contrac
On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social contract sh
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I do ont think that determining who interprets the
> non-constitution foundation documents belongs on the same ballot.
That seems entirely reasonable to me, and I agree on the undesireability
of combinatorial explosion of the ballot.
> It is a flaw in the co
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If we're going to have a vote on this topic, I feel quite strongly that
> every option which states the social contract is binding should include in
> it a constitutional amendment specifying *who* decides for the project
> what those
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
> the ftp-masters, and the release team with a clear cut
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "fou
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
>> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
>> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
>> d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social cont
> On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > ,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple
> > > GR ]
> > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > > | s
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
> state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
> dispute over what they mean.
If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at
On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
> > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
> > include SC/Constitution amendments to
On Fri Dec 19 20:55, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is a non-binding advisory document ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social contract is a stateme
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The social contract is supposedly a contract.
The Social Contract is not a contract (even though it is called that - but I
believe the name is an intentional reference to a famous concept in political
philosophy). A contr
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied t
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:23:27AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> If this vote is 1:1 then there's no point in the 3:1 requirement since
> you can just ignore them with a 1:1 vote. When we (using the term
> loosely, since it doesn't include me) voted in the constitution, surely
> the 3:1 requireme
Russ Allbery dijo [Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800]:
> Some possible options for that body:
>
> * The DPL (advantage: most directly representative governance figure)
>
> * The Secretary (advantage: not directly representative and hence somewhat
> akin to a Supreme Court judge in the US le
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 02:52:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> As far as voting for a position statement along the lines of "the social
> contract doesn't matter, we'll upload Microsoft Word into main, yay!",
> I believe that would also require a simple majority (1:1) to pass,
What you're say
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given that, I suggest we have a series of proposals and
> amendments, each in a separate email, sponsored and seconded
> independently, that could look something like this below:
>
> ,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
> | The developers, via a g
22 matches
Mail list logo
