On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> (indeed, the whole point is to remove such a proscription).
Yes. If the Social Contract had a provision proscribing the Debian
Account Managers from disabling developers' accounts, and we voted by a
landslide to remove that proscription, would it follow that the Debian
Account Managers should immediately disable all developers' accounts?
After all, they'd have a mandate, right?
> > I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that they would move
> > ahead with something so clearly controversial, public, and central
> > in Debian's history without a mandate.
>
> What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
> landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
It would mean people didn't want the Project compelled by its Social
Contract to distribute non-free forever and ever.
It wouldn't necessarily mean that the Project would think distributing
non-free now *isn't* a good idea.
You have accused me elsewhere on this list of treating the developers as
dumb sheep who aren't capable of discerning when they're being tricked,
imply that you do not share this opinion, and yet you think they're
going to misunderstand the following?
13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
"non-free section" via a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) archive
specifically. This makes it possible for us to decide, in the near
or distant future, to stop distributing the non-free section without
violating our own Social Contract.
This is part of the rationale. This goes on the ballot. It
*absolutely* should go on the ballot if you, as Project Secretary, feels
there is a reasonable chance of the proposal being misunderstood
otherwise.
Which of us is expressing the lower opinion of the electorate, again?
> >> If this proposal passes, wouldn't it be a mandate to also remove
> >> non-free, and the admins shall be acting in accordance with the
> >> wishes of the developers?
>
> > Branden's justification makes it *explicitly* clear that this is not
> > the case. I don't see how anyone could see that as a mandate as its
> > worded and justified in a way that explicitly claims that this is
> > not the case.
>
> I don't see that in the GR.
There isn't a GR yet, but there is an RFD, which I assume is what you're
talking about.
13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
"non-free section" via a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) archive
specifically. This makes it possible for us to decide, in the near
or distant future, to stop distributing the non-free section without
violating our own Social Contract.
You can find the above in our mailing list archives[1], if you don't
believe me.
> And branden's intent is irrelevant; if the project unanimously choses
> to drop section 5 from the sc, at least I would consider it as a
> clear indication of a mandate.
I think such a conclusion is thoroughly unwarranted, and I would hope
that the other developers think about the distinction between lifting a
requirement and imposing a counter-requirement a little more clearly
than you claim to be.
For example, that a U.S. state's law criminalizing homosexual sodomy is
overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court does not mean that there are
suddenly positive advantages to engaging in homosexual sodomy -- at
least none that did not exist before, are extrinsic to the act, and
bestowed by the government.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200310/msg00106.html
--
G. Branden Robinson | If you wish to strive for peace of
Debian GNU/Linux | soul, then believe; if you wish to
branden@debian.org | be a devotee of truth, then
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature