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

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>>         I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
>>  disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
>>  with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
>>  the ftp-masters, and the release team with a clear cut expression of
>>  the projects goals and clarifies how the project has decided to view
>>  the social contract.
>>         Given that, I suggest we have a series of proposals and
>>  amendments, each in a separate email, sponsored and seconded
>>  independently, that could look something like this below:
> I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
> state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
> dispute over what they mean.  We know there will be such disputes.  Just
> saying that they're binding (or not binding) doesn't resolve those
> disputes.

        I do ont think that determining who interprets the
 non-constitution foundation documents belongs on the same ballot. It is
 a flaw in the constitution, and should be fixed, I would second
 proposals that let the secretary not just interpret the constitution,
 but all other foundation documents as well. This seems in line with the
 constitution already handing tot hte secretary the role of interpreting
 the constitution.

        I also like the fact that then the secretary is given the role
 of interpreting the foundation documents, and determining final form of
 the ballots; I would suggest that the secretary be stripped of the
 power to run the actual vote (a wee bit of automation to devotee will
 allow somewone else to run it. This way the secretary has no more
 access to the votes that people cast than any other developer.

        Again, a constitutional amendment modifying the powers of the
 secretary should be discussed independently of deciding what the role
 of the SC is.

There are two ways of disliking poetry; one way is to dislike it, the
other is to read Pope.  -- Oscar Wilde
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: