[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: on-freearchive removal)



Hi,
>>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org> writes:


 Steve> I agree that the DFSG and SC are core documents for the Debian
 Steve> project, and should require the same level of agreement (3:1)
 Steve> for change or addition as the constitution.

 	That is good, so far.

 Steve> I'm not sure we need another document to list them,
 Steve> though.

 	Ok. You note that I did not make it part of my proposal; it
 was offered as a alternative for people who were bothered by the
 possibility of a constitutional amendment in order to add to the list
 of Foundation documents. I agree that the effort required to modify
 this external document would be no less than a constitutional
 amendment, but it pleases some peoples aesthetic senses.

 Steve> I'm also not very comfortable with melding it into the
 Steve> flow of text about other docs we might issue. How about
 Steve> something like this, after the other text currently in 5.:

 Steve> + 5.1 Two of these documents are considered fundamental to the
 Steve> +     purposes of of the Debian project, and may only be
 Steve> +     modified if the developers agree with a 3:1
 Steve> +     majority. The two documents are the Debian Free 
 Steve> +     Software Guidelines (DFSG) and the Debian Social
 Steve> +     Contract (SC). 

	You have totally removed the concept of a ``Foundation
 Document List'', and the fact that the powers of the developers apply
 to all the documents in this list. Thus, you are loosing a layer of
 abstraction, and even the potential of adding to the list cleanly. 

======================================================================
 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
 
   4.1. Powers
   
    Together, the Developers may:
     1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
     2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
     3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
     4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
        agree with a 2:1 majority.
-    5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
-       These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
-       relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
-       policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
-       software must meet.
-       They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+    5. Issue and modify nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+       These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+       relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+       policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+       software must meet.
+       They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+   5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as
+       "Foundation Documents". These documents are those 
+       that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project,
+       they tend to define what the project is, and lay the
+       foundations of its structure. The developers may
+       modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1
+       majority. 
+   5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
+       of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+       documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the 
+       Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+       that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed
+       by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 
     6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
        property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
        s.9.1.)
======================================================================   

 Steve> There's no need to mention the constitution, as it already
 Steve> requires a 3:1 majority to modify.

 	Does no harm, though, does it? It does seem to emphasize the
 consistency. 

 Steve> This also means that the list of fundamental documents
 Steve> requires a 3:1, which I think is a good idea. Seperating to a
 Steve> different clause will make future ammendments to the list of
 Steve> covered documents a little cleaner, and makes their special
 Steve> status more clear.


 	The version I suggest above has these characteristics, and
 even carries them a little further by introducing 5.2

 Steve> (I'm not purposing this as a formal ammendment to Manoj's proposal, as
 Steve> it is just another way of saying the same thing. I think it's clearer,
 Steve> but I'll leave to him and others to decide if they agree.)

 	Hey, I'm easy. Also, I have not yet made it into a formal
 proposal precisely for this reason, I want to develop it
 collaboratively with the people here to achieve a better crafted
 proposal when we are done.

 	manoj
-- 
 Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be. But half
 the bee has got to be, vis-a-vis its entity.  See? But can a bee be
 said to be or not to be an entire bee, When half the bee is not a
 bee, due to some ancient injury?
Manoj 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: