Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the
>> secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an
>> amendment so far as I can tell.
> It says "according to the requirements for a new resolution", which
> seems to allow things proposed as a new resolution to really be
> amendments.
I believe that you really think that, but I don't understand how you could
get that from that text. How does saying that the procedure for making an
amendment involves the same requirements as making a new resolution imply
that new resolutions can be turned into amendments?
> I admit it's not really clear, and can as well mean that an amendment is
> something different which only has the same requirements.
Until this thread, I would have thought that it was completely clear. I'm
still not managing to see another reading than the one that to me is
obvious. (Although I guess that's other people's reactions to my
understanding of what the SC says, ironically.)
>>> I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very
>>> vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a
>>> release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly
>>> not shared by everyone.
>> Surely you realize that this phrasing is highly controversial and
>> confrontational, given that the release team doesn't believe that
>> they're ignoring the DFSG?
> Are you talking about my wording, or about the wording of the options?
I was talking about your wording.
>> I don't believe they are either.
> Neither do I. The reason I asked was because you seemed to say that
> they were, and that FD would allow them to continue doing that. I now
> understand that you didn't mean that.
I definitely wasn't saying that. I just checked all of my messages to
this thread and I have never used the word "ignore" except in response to
your messages citing things that you're saying, so I'm not sure how you
could have gotten that idea, but I apologize for giving the impression.
I think I understand where your wording came from now. It was an attempt
to restate what you thought my position was? It's very different from my
actual position, so I didn't recognize it at all.
>> I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of
>> ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their
>> interpretation of how the DFSG is applied.
>
> I think you are talking about me here.
Among others, but yes.
> I haven't actually seen anyone making this accusation. The only time it
> was mentioned was when I asked you if this was what you meant. To be
> clear, I immediately followed it with a statement saying that I didn't
> actually think so myself.
Okay, it appears to have all been a misunderstanding. I'm not sure how we
managed to misunderstand each other to that degree, but I guess it
happens.
> I think I agree with this... However, it means that if anyone (delegate
> or other DD) is violating a foundation document, only a 1:1 majority is
> needed to allow it by not deciding to forbid it.
Right, via a delegate override.
> That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at
> least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed.
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer
override to enforce that sense of the meaning.
Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are
explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement
about their interpretation.
(Just to be clear, in this parcticular case, I continue to believe that
changing the text of the SC and/or DFSG is superior to issuing a project
statement about their interpretation, since doing the former is going to
be much more conclusive and long-lasting and will avoid, hopefully, doing
this again for squeeze. But that doesn't change my analysis of what the
proposal originally put forward was actually intended to do.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: