I second this proposal. Greetings, On 2004-05-02 Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> said: > I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the > list of foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, > titled "Transition Guide". The context diff follows. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > <OL style="list-style: decimal;"> > <LI>A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as > critical to the Project's mission and purposes.</LI> > <LI>The Foundation Documents are the works entitled <q>Debian > - Social Contract</q> and <q>Debian Free Software Guidelines</q>.</LI> > + Social Contract</q>, <q>Transition Guide</q> and > + <q>Debian Free Software Guidelines</q>.</LI> > <LI>A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its > supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and > existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation > Documents in this constitution.</LI> > </OL> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > It is further resolved that the final paragraph of the "Transition > Guide" with specific references to the forthcoming release (code named > "Sarge") shall be removed from the "Transition Guide" upon the next > full release of Debian after Debian 3.1 (code named "Sarge"), without > further cause for deliberation. > > It is resolved that the full text of the proposed foundation document > be the following: > > Content-Description: Transition Guide > 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's deeply > intertwined with the 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. Since we have recently changed these commitments, we 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, 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. > > 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. > > > > Rationale > > My intent was not just to find a way for us to allow to release Sarge, > it was to create a guideline to help ease us through major changes in > something like the Social contract, or the constitution. The fact that > a generic transition guide may help us also release Sarge soon is a > nice side effect. > > It has been suggested that transitioning ought to be handled in the > original proposal itself, and yes, that is a good idea. But foresight > is weak, compared to 8/20 hind sight, and there may be unforeseen > consequences of a proposed change that were not evident while drafting > the proposal. > > Nothing is perfect. I would much rather we also had a process defined > to pick up the pieces if the before-the-fact transition plan blew up > in our face; this is way better than relying on perfect foresight in > transition plans. > > The other issue addressed in the proposal is one of choosing between > two different requirements of the social contract; and how to balance > these different requirements when some of these requirements are > changed. > ====================================================================== > > I would appreciate it if the people who seconded the original > proposal also second the modifications made in adding the sunset > clause, and the typographical changes wrought. > > manoj -- Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.cx - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature