* This proposal was originally made to debian-project on 19 July, but
according to <http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal>, the current
Project Secretary refuses to recognizes Proposed General Resolutions sent
to any list other than debian-project.
* I have been told, secondhand, that the Project Secretary also does not
accept seconds in forwarded form to the debian-vote list, even if the
original message along with digital signature is intact and verifiable as
having come from the person in question. If the sitting Project
Secretary has found a way to forge digital signatures by forwarding them,
I am certain the cryptographic community would like to hear about it. In
the meantime, I apologize to the original seconders for carbon-copying
them and ask them to second again (if they wish) -- this time directly to
the debian-vote mailing list -- and, if they have not already done so, to
subscribe to debian-vote.
* This is a proposed amendment to the Project Constitution, and under the
terms of 4.1.2 (quoted below) will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass.
This is just FYI.
* Much of the language of this proposal was authored by Manoj Srivastava
in a similar message to debian-project in July. This proposal, however,
should not be regarded as substantially similar to his proposal (he did
not indicate to me that he accepted my message as an amendment to his
proposal). Therefore, this proposal must stand on its own. In other
words, this proposal should not be construed as an expression of Manoj's
position or opinions.
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ 5. Issue, modify, 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.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to
the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents.
Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues
such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that
should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should
be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable
developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the
Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the
issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their
amendability.
======================================================================
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws
branden@debian.org | will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
----- End forwarded message -----
--
G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to unlearn
branden@debian.org | old falsehoods.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgp6gjVNPuYTf.pgp
Description: PGP signature