Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
>> Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
>> document is the previous option.
> What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
> that is what I mean. We are agreeing to do something which the
> foundation document said we would not, but only for a certain period of
> time (etch).
Well, that's rather incomplete as that means that we are shipping
non-free software in main before etch (in experimental, unstable,
testing), in stable (etch) and probably still after etch till it gets
fixed in experimental, unstable, testing. As it is very strange
formulated for what is really happening and it's ultimately the
maintainer and ftp-master's decision to ship it like that, I don't see
why you want to vote on it? It's not like you override the decision of
the maintainer/ftp-master, but rather acknowledge it.
> I don't _care_ what you call that, I call it a temporary override of a
> foundation document.
Please do read the constitution and don't use these terms if you mean
A temporary conflict with the foundation document for some packages is
only as temporary as the issues getting fixed. I don't see why there
needs to be a vote for a release as the release is only showing to the
broad audience what was already there all the time and not getting
fixed. When the Release Team decides to tag an issue <release>-ignore,
it does that when there are clear signs that the issues are being worked
on, but it being unrealistic to get fixed in time for the release. If it
would get fixed in time, the Release Team would of course still try to
include the fix in the release.
You could of course argue that the maintainer and ftp-master were not
respecting a foundation document, though in that case you should
override their decision IMHO.
>>> 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
>>> 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
>>> want to override the FD (?)
>>> 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say
>>> which of 2-5 it is.
>> 4-6 are normal position statements AFAICS.
> That's certainly a point of view, but not the one every holds.
Yes, though please give some clear indications in the constitution on
how you can interpret it differently as I don't see them, TIA.
>>> 1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like.
>>> 3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but
>>> we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release".
>> This one would be in 4-6 AFAICS.
> Why do you say that. This is definitely contrary to a foundation
> document (if you don't think it is, please pick a different example
> which is) and we want it to be binding. Ergo, not a position statement.
Well, there is no such category in the constitution. If you do want to
include it, you'd better prepare a vote to include it IMHO.
>>> 5. is something like "Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs. This
>>> does not override the DFSG", which I don't think makes any sense.
>> One cannot override a document.
> See above. I'm not interested in arguing about terminology, I think it's
> clear what I mean by 'override a document', please suggest alternative
> phrasing if you prefer.
It's you who are using the terminology in a different context and
meaning than what is used in the constitution AFAICS.
>> As the DFSG is a document that state our guidelines of what is free, I
>> don't see how it would get changed even temporary when we would have a
>> vote on 'Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs'.
> OK, if you prefer it changes the SC to allow exceptions which don't
> conform to the DFSG. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear here, I was
> hoping people would get the gist of what I meant, but I'll try and be
> more pedantic in future.
Nope, it's telling that firmware blobs are not covered by the DFSG for
Lenny. It can't both conflict and not be covered by the same document
>>> Now, I understand you don't like the use of 'override' when describing
>>> option 3, I'm happy to describe it as something else, but _I_ think that
>>> the constitution at the moment requires 3:1 majority for this sort of
>>> vote. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is
>>> why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset.
>> Well, what I propose to do is to read the constitution and use its terms
>> instead, which would ease these discussions a lot AFAICS.
> That would be great, unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a grey
> area here, hence the problems.
Only because people don't seem to read the constitution and follow some
ideas from what's included in the constitution that I don't find written
in it. Please do point me to the relevant sections of the constitution
if you find them, TIA.