Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
> > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
> > document. Otherwise it doesn't.
> So, if someone proposes a GR saying "we will ship the binary NVidia
> drivers in main and make them the default so that people can use compiz"
> but doesn't say they are overriding the DFSG or provide the wdiff for it
> then that's fine and only needs 1:1 to pass?
Yes, that's perfectly fine - and also non-binding, so the 80% of the DDs who
didn't vote, the 47% of the voters who voted against it, and the 2% of the
voters who didn't read before voting can ignore that position statement and
continue doing things just as they were before.
Just like, *constitutionally*, any individual developer can already ignore
the Social Contract or DFSG at their discretion.
This is not an argument that it's ok for developers to ignore the SC. I'm
merely pointing out that adherence to the SC does *not* follow from the
constitution, so *constitutional* arguments about why decisions to set aside
the SC should require the same supermajority as superseding the SC are
So please stop trying to use the constitution for an easy out when you want
to override the conscience of your fellow developers. You still need a
simple majority of people *in favor* of your GR in order to accomplish that;
blocking an expression of the majority opinion by imposing a supermajority
requirement that doesn't follow from the letter of the constitution does not
accomplish that. The default is still that each developer is going to do
what they personally believe is right.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/