Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
On 10/14/2014 6:50 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> "Appropriate" in which sense?
>
In the sense that it is appropriate for a DD to bring it up.
>>>>> 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.
>
> Do you think that the DDs thinking that they are doing the right thing
> automatically makes them guided by the needs of the users?
>
I think they know a lot more about it than either you or I do.
> I would like to see some evidence that the DDs are guided by the needs
> of the users. If this statement about being guided by the needs of the
> users is solely in the social contract to remind DDs
>
Ask them.
>>>> that the interests and needs of the users are important
>
> then I'd suggest to clarify things and to perhaps change this statement
> so that it says what Martin(?) says that it says, if it actually is
> supposed to mean what he says it does.
>
Once again, I see no need for a change.
>
>>> [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.
>
> Then they aren't really users. Users don't have power and are either
> doing the work or not.
>
Sure, they are users. Do you think they are running some other OS?
No, the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Debian users don't have
"power" in the way you think. But then it would be impossible to get
even 1% of those users to vote on ANYTHING. In their place we have the
DDs, who are the representatives of the Debian community. And they do
what they believe is right for the community.
>> 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.
>
> I don't have a solution for this problem.
>
It's pretty simple. The system we have in place right now.
>>>> 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.
>
> Is this so because the small number of people knows better what a great
> diversity of other people you say nobody can even know about need than
> those other people themselves? And they know this simply because they
> are more or less involved with some source code?
>
> Somehow, that doesn't make sense to me.
>
The DDs know more about the internals of Debian than anyone else. They
are in the best position to make INFORMED decisions. The fact I
disagree with them on one subject is immaterial.
If you want to become a member of the community making the decisions,
feel free to join and help with the work.
> I could understand it if you were saying that the DDs --- or the source
> code they are so intimately involved with --- define what the users
> shall need. That wouldn't be what the social contract says, though.
>
Yes it is. You just don't agree with it.
> Wouldn't have DDs to be intimately involved with users rather than
> source code to be able to know what the users need?
>
The DDs ARE users - and I would expect each one to have more different
system setups than you and I put together (and I do have several - both
servers and desktops).
> Perhaps the social contract should be changed to "Users are
> irrelevant.". By your logic, as long as the DDs would think that they'd
> be doing the right thing to change it in this way, it would be what
> the users need.
>
>
No, because users are NOT irrelevant. DDs make their decisions with the
best of the users in mind.
Whether you like it or not, that is how it is. Of course, you are
always free to pick a different distro.
Jerry
Reply to: