On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > working out for us. The ballot that chose the current social contract > > didn't have any alternatives included, and was conducted immediately > > following the constitutional amendment to allow voting on non-free > > removal, the non-free removal debate itself and then the DPL elections, > > with only minimal discussion on -vote, most of which occurred prior to > > the non-free vote. > It was ratified by a large majority though, and i clearly remember 4-5 options > on that ballot. There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely "delay the SC change until Sept 1st 2004", "delay the SC change until sarge releases", "apologise", "revert to SC 1.0", "create a transition guide for the SC and DFSG", "reaffirm the new SC". The last option failed to achieve even a simple majority (188 ranked it below further discussion, 155 ranked it above), each of the other options achieved a 2:1 supermajority, but only the "delay the SC change" options achieved the required 3:1 supermajority. > Well, i believe that both of them basically said the same thing. Yes, we've had that discussion; the key point is you used the word "software" to cover more of the contents of main, than others did. > > I think: > > (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be > > presumed only to cover programs, scripts, libraries and similar > > executable works to be executed directly as part of the Debian > > System. > And the rest is what ? Hardware ? Firmware, documentation, images, sounds, videos, fonts, etc. > Indeed, then [why] come back on the software vs program thingy, and retriger > another 3+ month of discussion and voting ? Because we don't have an alternative social contract that we understand well, and can adopt immediately without being in violation of it; and we can't get a new social contract that we understand well without spending some time to discuss it. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature