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

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

On Sun May 24 17:20, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 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.

You seem to be missing my point and arguing about my example rather than
what I'm trying to illustrate

> > 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
> something else.

The point of this discussion is that the constitution would seem t be
ambiguous. You read it one way, and I read it another.

> 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.

Luk, I actually agree with this stance, I think this is what we should
do. It is clear, however, that not everyone thinks like this. I'm trying
to present a ballot or set of ballots which will clarify our foundation
documents. The input I would really really like from people is proposals
for amendments which make it really really clear what it means, even if
you think it means the same as it does now (especially so, in fact).

> > 
> > 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.

If people weren't interpreting the constitution differently we would not
have had all the mess and GRs before Lenny. Do I really need to link to
them again?

> > 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.

I believe that is what I am doing now

> >> 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

I've not seen anyone argue that the DFSG does not cover firmware blobs
and that is not what the vote ever proposed.

> > 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.

Your reading is not my reading and neither of them are other people's
reading. This is why I am trying to clarify it so that we all agree what
it says. Mostly I am indifferent which of a sensible set of things it
says, but I think we definitely need to agree.

FWIW I would read 4.1.5 along with the SC and DFSG to mean that 3:1 is
required when voting on something which if repeated ad-infinitum would
be equivalent to replacing the SC, DFSG and constitution but without
doing so because any other interpretation is absurd and makes the 3:1
pointless. I am completely aware that you and others disagree, and hence
the point of this vote so we can pick a position on it.

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: