Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
> Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
>>> Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
>>>> Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to
>>>> be seconded by at least 5 other members (constitution 4.2.1, 4.2.7).
>>>> This has not happened.
>>>
>>> I know, and I'm suggesting to omit this requirement.
>>
>> Technically, there *is* a way for a GR to be brought forward for
>> discussion and voting without having six DDs supporting it: the
>> Project Leader can personally propose it. The Project Leader has not
>> done so, and the Debian Constitution does not place any obligation on
>> the holder of the post of Project Leader to propose any particular
>> General Resolution.
>>
>> Any change to these constitutional arrangements would require the
>> Debian Constitution to be amended, which (per the Constitution)
>> requires a General Resolution validly proposed under the existing
>> arrangements and then passed by a 3:1 supermajority in the ensuing
>> vote.
>>
>> I would argue in any event that it's probably inappropriate for the
>> Project Leader to propose a General Resolution which has already been
>> proposed by a DD and failed to receive the required number of
>> sponsors.
>
> This sounds like a very bad situation to me in which Debian has gotten
> stuck. It's a good reason to re-consider the rules and to change them
> so that getting stuck with an issue these rules are not adequate to deal
> with hopefully doesn't come up so easily again. It's also a good reason
> to let the rules be rules and to do what it is right instead --- no harm
> would come from having a GR.
>
Actually, I have to agree with Martin on this. Although I don't like
systemd, I also think it would be inappropriate for the Project Leader
to propose a GR if it has already failed to get enough votes. Now if a
DD wishes to propose it again, that would be more appropriate.
>>> Then they shouldn't say in their social contract that the users and
>>> their needs are the priority.
>>
>> It is precisely *because* decisions in Debian are not made by the
>> users-at-large, but only by the Debian developers, that the social
>> contract by which the developers are expected to abide when working on
>> the Debian project must explicitly state that the interests and needs
>> of the users are important.
>
> The contract doesn't claim that the interests and needs of the users are
> important. It says:
>
>
> "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
> community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
> will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
> kinds of computing environments [...]"[1]
>
>
> It is irrelevant whether the needs or interests of the users are
> important. The contract merely claims that the interests of the users
> are the first priority. That's a pretty strong statement, actually.
>
> Do you feel more like that what the contract says is actually true or
> more like that it is not? If the contract was true, then how could
> Debian let itself get stuck in the bad situation as decribed above?
>
Obviously the DDs think they are doing the right thing. I happen to
disagree with them, but I don't think this invalidates the social contract.
>
> [1]: https://www.debian.org/social_contract
>
>
>> This, of course, leads us to two interesting points:
>> 1) the Debian Developers are themselves users of Debian
>
> Then they should have no more or less power to make decisions than users
> have. As long as they have more power to make decisions than users
> have, the interests of the users are not the first priority of the
> developers.
>
I disagree. I think they are doing the work and should have the power.
And even if as you said - how are you going to get all of the users in
the world (or even 1% of them) to understand and make an intelligent
choice on any situation.
>> 2) the Debian user community is not a monolithic entity whose
>> constituent parts have uniform and identical interests and needs
>
> Isn't that another good reason to not let a (small) part of the users
> have more power than another (larger) part?
>
It is an even better reason to have people who are intimately involved
in the code and know more than most users have more power.
>> Besides, I very much doubt a proposal to redraft the DSC in a way that
>> removed the passages about the importance of the users would receive
>> even a 1:1 majority, let alone the 3:1 majority required to supersede
>> one of the constitutionally-designated Foundational Documents.
>
> Why would such a document need some kind of majority to be changed when
> what it claims is obviously not true? To what it shall be changed is a
> different question which might require some sort of majority. Do the
> Debians have no honour, or do they think so low of themselves that they
> would keep up false claims in their constitutional documents?
>
I see nothing untrue about the document.
> The page says the document was last changed over ten years ago[1]. A
> lot can happen within ten years.
>
>
And I see nothing which needs to be changed in the social contract.
Jerry
Reply to: