Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: on-freearchive removal)
>>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.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,
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
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
+ 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
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
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.
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 <email@example.com> <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