Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority
> > requirements.
>
> (...)
>
> So, yes, that does require interpretation.
Actually I said it does not require interpretation of the DFSG to set
majority requirements. And I still think this is true for this
particular case.
> > No, thats a inherently wrong way to work with a constitution. Somebody
> > earlier in one of the related threads brought a good example. He
> > compared the consitution of Debian with the consititution of a state.
> > The important thing about a constitution is that one has to be careful
> > with it. Its not a law that you change or interpret like you want if you
> > see fit.
>
> Actually, a constitution /is/ a law; it's just a special type of law,
Right. Might be that my wording was not clear. I just wanted to point
out that my understanding of a constitution is, that it needs to be
handled with more care then you do with a law.
> I think that we have made the mistake of giving too much power to one
> person. While I do not think Manoj willingly abused that power, I do
> think that this has made it harder for him to retain his objectivity;
> and that he has lost it over the years, though through no fault of his
> own.
Yep, I agree that it is bad to give too much power to one person and yes
I agree that Manjoj did not willingly abuse his power.
> The solution therefore seems obvious: The secretary should no longer be
> the person who interprets the constitution. Instead, interpretation of
> the constitution should be given to a small body of trusted developers
> who only decide on interpretation when explicitly asked to do so.
Right. I agree fully with this and would second a proposal that would
push this idea forward (but *after* we released Lenny ofcourse :)
Best Regards,
Patrick
Reply to: