Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
[ Note: I'm posting this to -devel because I feel it is of importance
to developers at large. Please carry out the discussion on -vote. ]
SUMMARY
-------
The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions. Below you will
find my analysis and a point-by-point analysis of his comments.
CONSITUTIONAL ISSUES
--------------------
The proposed GR seeks to remove non-free from the Debian archives
(note: non-free is already removed from the Debian distribution).
Because of a mistake in the drafting of the Social Contract, the
Contract explicitly states not only the name, but also the
distribution method (FTP) for non-free. It would technically be
possible to remove non-free without this amendment, but I feel this
would be misleading.
A. Power to carry out these actions
Under Constitution §4.1(5), Debian developers, by way of a General
Resolution, have the power to "issue nontechnical policy documents and
statements". The Constitution further enumerates some examples:
"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." Clearly the Social Contract falls under this
categorization.
Pursuant to §4.1(3) and §4.1(4), the developers also have the ability
to carry out technical actions (such as the actual removal of non-free
from the FTP site).
B. Constitutionality and Quorum for Modifying the Social Contract
As I established above, the Constitution does provide the authority to
the Debian developers to make the requested modification to the Social
Contract. The Constitution lays out supermajority requirements
relevant to this action. Therefore, standard Concorde vote counting
as indicated in §A.6 applies.
C. Constitutionality for Modifying Voting Rules
The Constitution is quite clear that an amendment to the Constitution
requires a 3:1 supermajority (§4.1(2)). However, the proposed
amendment to the GR does not require that supermajority as indeed the
GR itself does not, since the GR is not a Constitutional amendment.
The Secretary has no authority under the Constitution as it stands to
alter the quorum or result of a vote based on the result of a GR
amendment. Furthermore, the amendment is completely orthogonal to the
issue of voting procedure and does not even mention it.
RESPONSE TO THE SECRETARY
-------------------------
I shall respond point by point to the Secretary's message, included in
its entirety below.
> The Debian Constitution is a very important document to Debian. The Social
Indeed the Constitution is important to Debian. This importance is
one reason that we must respect it and follow the procedures laid out
within it.
> Contract and DFSG are as important or even more important than the
> Constitution. Because of its importance, the Social Contract can not be
> left to the General Resolution methods for change. The intent of the
The Secretary advances the premise that the Social Contract and DFSG
are "as important" or "more important" than the Constitution. This
may or may not be true. Certainly they are all important; however,
the Constitution makes discrimination between voting methods based
upon the Secretary's (or anyone else's) assesment of the relative
importance of a document. I also note that the Secretary's message is
totally devoid of any citation of applicable rules in the
Constitution, or even of relevant precedent. In my analysis above, I
try to be as clear as possible and refer people directly to the
appropriate sections in the Constitution.
By point A above, it is quite clear that the Social Contract falls
under the specific guidelines set out in the Constitution itself for
modification. The Secretary's allegation that the "Social Contract
can not be left to the General Resolution methods for change" would
force us to believe that the Social Contract does not meet the
criteria in §4.1(5). Here is that section:
5.Issue 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.
By declaring that the Social Contract modification does not meet the
criteria for a GR, and thus fails the §4.1(5) test, he is saying that
it is not a document describing the goals of the project, nor does it
describe its relationship with other free software entities, nor does
it describe nontechnical policies. Clearly all three of these
assertions are false. Only one need be true for the modification to
be legal as a GR. Any reasonable person can see that clearly the
Social Contract, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is in fact a document that
defines Debian's relationship with other free software entities and
describes the goals of the project! To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Additionally, if we were to follow the Secretary's logic and assume
that the Social Contract does not describe our goals and does not
describe our relationship to others, we have to wonder why the
Secretary feels that the document is of such extraordinary importance
to merit an alteration in the voting procedures specified by the
Constitution.
> Constitution was to protect key elements of Debian as well as provide a
> structured method for conflict resolution and change. The framers of the
> Constitution did not directly name the Social Contract to prevent it's
> change but the Social Contract can not be treated as lesser than the
> Constitution.
The Constitution lays out specific methods for modification of itself
and other Debian-related documents. Regardless of your own personal
opinion on the matter, the Constitution is straightforward in this
regard and you do not have the authority to second-guess the
Constitution here.
> We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or
> the Important Documents (constitution) quorum.
There is no "Important Documents" quorum mentioned anywhere in the
Constitution. There is only an alteration of the quorum specified
when there is a supermajority required, and I have already established
above that no supermajority is required. Therefore the shenanigans of
altering the quorum requirements for the final vote on the GR based
upon the vote on the proposed amendment to it are totally out-of-line
and in gross violation of the letter and the spirit of the
Constitution.
-- John Goerzen
"Darren O. Benham" <gecko@benham.net> writes:
> First of all, I want to apologize for "disappearing". Originally I was
> allowed time from work to perform Debian duties. I have taken steps to
> correct the lack of time that will, shortly, be announced. :) In the mean
> time, please forgive my lapse. Here is what I found after reading the
> volumes of email and discussing the issue. Due to my lapse, I will wait one
> more week before sending out the first ballot. I wish to give everybody the
> chance to read the initial exchange and familiarize themselves with the
> issue again. I am going to assume that another flame^H^H^H^H^Hdebate will occur,
> this seems to be they way Debian likes to talk about things but to my way of
> thinking, it's the original discussion that is important. The "debates" tend
> to have no significant contributions.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> WHEREAS,
> The Debian Constitution is a very important document to Debian. The Social
> Contract and DFSG are as important or even more important than the
> Constitution. Because of its importance, the Social Contract can not be
> left to the General Resolution methods for change. The intent of the
> Constitution was to protect key elements of Debian as well as provide a
> structured method for conflict resolution and change. The framers of the
> Constitution did not directly name the Social Contract to prevent it's
> change but the Social Contract can not be treated as lesser than the
> Constitution.
>
> THEREFORE,
> Since the proposed amendment introduced in the email archived at:
>
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00018.html
>
> And seconded by these messages:
>
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00031.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00035.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00039.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00037.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00038.html
>
> changes the text of the original proposal found at
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00000.html
>
> and seconded by:
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00005.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00013.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00056.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00019.html
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-vote-0006/msg00011.html
>
> We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or
> the Important Documents (constitution) quorum.
>
> Darren Benham
> Project Secretary
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
Reply to: