On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote: > There's nothing in the consititution that prohibits passing nonsensical > GRs or GRs that contradict foundation documents, as long as they don't > actually alter the foundation documents. Given a ballot option which does not explicitly specify whether or not it is a. pointless or b. overriding the foundation document with which it clearly conflicts I think for sanity's sake it should be assumed to be the latter and hence have a 3:1 majority requirement. Either that or the secretary should refuse to list any options which do not explicitly resolve their conflict with a foundation document > > Nvidia drivers are just a placeholder here. Insert firmware or anything > > else which might have support. I wanted an example that was clear I'm > > talking about definitely non-free stuff, not arguing whether binary > > vectors in header files are defacto source form. > > Unfortunately, by simplifying, you're removing the factor that makes this > vote so problematic, namely the disagreement over whether what the GR says > is contradictory or not. One of the many sides in the current debate is > the position that putting source-less firmware into main does *not* > contradict the DFSG. Indeed and the option which said that was 1:1. The options which said that even though they contradicted the DFSG we would let them through were 3:1 > > NVidia drivers are just a placeholder to illustrate the point. You > > definitely _can't_ claim that they meet the DFSG (but you could change > > it to allow them anyway). However, you do raise something here which > > people may be confusing. A vote that said "we will assume that firmware > > is in source form" is very different to one which says "we don't care > > whether or not it is source form". The former says "we keep the DFSG as > > it is, but we are asserting that they comply unless we can prove > > otherwise" and the latter says "even if we can prove otherwise we will > > change the DFSG so that it is allowed" The former is 1:1 and the latter > > is 3:1. > > I agree with this, since the latter says that you're going to change the > DFSG. But the firmware case doesn't necessarily say that. One of the > positions held about firmware is that it's not a program provided by > Debian in the sense used in the SC and DFSG. Holding that position > doesn't require changing the DFSG. Sure, that's fine, but not what I'm talking about > This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get > across. Foundation documents do not have some sort of Platonic True > Meaning that exists outside of the governance process. The words mean > what people with the authority to make decisions decide they mean, and > those decisions have no special protection or role in the constitution. > Therefore, in a very real sense the DFSG and SC mean whatever a simple > majority of developers decide that they mean in each specific case where a > GR is applied. Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature