Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
On Sun, 2 May 2004 14:59:11 -0400, Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> said:
> I really like the new version of this GR, but I noticed a few
> minor problems with it. Since even editorial changes to a
> foundation document require a GR (and a supermajority), I think it's
> best if we clean this up as much as possible before the vote.
Quite so. And if the changes are merely typographical, they
do not reset the discussion period, and can be accepted anytime in
the discussion period, so have at it.
>> In General Resolution 2004_003, the wording of the Social Contract
>> was modified. The Social Contract represents the core commitments
>> of the Project. The Social Contract leaves its marks in many ways,
>> it's deeply intertwined with the all parts of the Project.
> The ", it's" is awkward: the contraction is out of step with the
> tone of the rest of the language, and the sentence structure is odd.
> Also, note "the all" instead of "all the".
> I would prefer:
> The Social Contract leaves its marks in many ways; it is deeply
> intertwined with all parts of the Project.
Accepted. This does not cause any change in the substance or
meaning, and it is freely accepted by the proposer.
>> Any change to the Social Contract has major ramifications, and may
>> require a period of potentially deep changes to the roots of the
>> Project before it can come into compliance with the changed
>> Contract.
>>
>> Meeting our commitments as described in the Social Contact is an
>> ongoing process. Since we have recently changed these commitments,
>> we need an interval of time before we can approach compliance.
> This last sentence shouldn't be in the present tense, since it
> won't always be true :)
> I suggest:
> When we change these commitments, there will be an interval of
> time before we can approach compliance.
Umm.
Whenever we change these commitments, we may need an interval of
time before we can approach compliance.
>> There is precedent for a gap between ratifying a change to the
>> foundation documents of the Project and implementing dictates of
>> that document; when the Project first accepted the Social Contract
>> and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, there was an interval
>> before we came into compliance with those then-new documents.
> s/those/these/, maybe. (honestly, I don't know why I feel that
> should change)
Umm, no. This is a specific precedent setting example,
so those is correct here, I think.
>> Indeed, there was the release of a minor version just days after
>> the Debian Free Software Guidelines were accepted, and this release
>> by no means complied with the new commitments.
> I think the first sentence is a bit cumbersome, try:
> Indeed, a new minor version was released just days after...
Accepted.
>> We affirm that whenever a change to the Social Contract, or the
>> Constitution, takes place, the activities required to provide
>> ongoing and proactive support for the Debian user community shall
>> continue. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to,
>> providing security updates for previously-released versions of
>> Debian, providing point-release updates to previously-released
>> versions of Debian, preparing for the next (compliant) release of
>> Debian, actually releasing the current non-compliant version of
>> Debian if such a release is imminent (as well as any further
>> updates to that version of Debian), as well as providing all the
>> Project's infrastructure such as bug-tracking and mailing lists.
> Suggest "and" before the "actually" (comma-separated lists usually
> say "A, B, C, and D"). I guess it isn't there because of "as well
> as", but I'd put it there anyway.
Doesn't sound right to me when I speak it aloud. I would like
some other opinions on this as well.
Thanks for your comments.
manoj
Transition Guide
A working guide to achieve the transition for changes in Foundation
documents with specific remedies for the change in the social contract
made by GR 2004_003 containing explanations and Rationale, and defining
guidelines for future transitions
In General Resolution 2004_003, the wording of the Social Contract was
modified. The Social Contract represents the core commitments of the
Project. The Social Contract leaves its marks in many ways, it is deeply
intertwined with all parts of the Project. Any change to the Social
Contract has major ramifications, and may require a period of
potentially deep changes to the roots of the Project before it can come
into compliance with the changed Contract.
Meeting our commitments as described in the Social Contact is an
ongoing process. Whenever we change these commitments, we may need an
interval of time before we can approach compliance. Unless we shut
down the Project completely - abandoning users and our developers -
the regular activities of the Project must continue while we work
towards compliance.
There is precedent for a gap between ratifying a change to the
foundation documents of the Project and implementing dictates of that
document; when the Project first accepted the Social Contract and the
Debian Free Software Guidelines, there was an interval before we came
into compliance with those then-new documents. Indeed, a minor version
was released just days after the Debian Free Software Guidelines were
accepted, and this release by no means complied with the new
commitments.
We also continued to support older non-complying releases, and did not
make them unavailable to our users.
The binding principle here is that we have to balance the needs of our
users and the need to make Debian strictly free. As seen on the mailing lists:
In my opinion, the needs of the free software community take
precedence in the context of adopting new packages, in the setting
of release goals, in our choices about infrastructure and
philosophy, and of course in the context of any development work we
do.
In my opinion, the needs of our users take precedence in the context
of security fixes, in the context of support for packages and
systems we've released, and in the context of the quality of our
work.
With this document, we, the Debian Project, do so affirm this. We affirm
that while we are working towards complying with a change in the goals
or identity of the Project, or towards compliance with any change to a
foundation document, the needs of our users will be catered to. This may
mean that for a limited time, Debian will not be compliant with the new
Social Contract.
We affirm that whenever a change to the Social Contract, or the
Constitution, takes place, the activities required to provide ongoing
and proactive support for the Debian user community shall
continue. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, providing
security updates for previously-released versions of Debian, providing
point-release updates to previously-released versions of Debian,
preparing for the next (compliant) release of Debian, actually
releasing the current non-compliant version of Debian if such a
release is imminent (as well as any further updates to that version of
Debian), as well as providing all the Project's infrastructure such as
bug-tracking and mailing lists.
In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that release
currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to release,
and the previously released version is quite out of date, our commitment
to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on as planned -
even while we are in the process of reaching compliance with the new
Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to security releases
and point releases as well.
--
"There is no knowledge that is not power." Ralph Waldo EmersonManoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: