Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The constitution says that people may not actively work against rules made
> > under the constitution (which includes those in foundation documents),
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:25:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The problem is that your bracketed comment is purely invented.
Are you claiming that it's inaccurate? I don't see the basis for
that claim.
> Developers are asked to read/agree with/support/obey the social contract
> as part of the new maintainer process, but beyond that there's no
> requirement that they treat the social contract with more respect than,
> say, debian-policy, _except_ in so far as we're not allowed to change
> it except through a 3:1 vote.
Sure. And we're in the process of putting together a GR to satisfy the
3:1 vote requirement.
> Having the webmaster, or doc-debian maintainer make some edits
> would be violating the constitution.
Ok.
> Having folks not read it at all,
> or choose to follow some different rules, otoh, isn't forbidden at all.
Not reading it at all is dealt with by NM.
Following different rules is obviously ok.
Following different rules which conflict is not at all obviously ok.
> > In what way has it "not been made under the constitution"?
>
> There's no specification of what we'll actually do with the social
> contract.
Except that we're not supposed to work against it.
> > It's explicitly mentioned in the constitution -- how much more "under"
> > can you get?
>
> Easy: the constitution could say "The guidelines in the social contract
> will direct our activities at all times." Or it could say "Our activities
> will at all times comply with the social contract." Or it could say
> "We will use the social contract as a guide in deciding what activities
> to pursue."
None of this means that the social contract isn't currently in the set of
"decisions properly made under the rules of the constitution".
> As it is, all we've got is "The social contract is crucial to the project".
Only if you ignore the other bits about following the rules and modifying
the foundations documents.
I don't see any reason to believe that these should be considered in
isolation.
> Other folks appear to have: Manoj has indicated that a simple position
> statement won't suffice [0], assuming that mail wasn't being deliberately
> misleading by not applying to the current situation.
That makes sense to me -- a position statement which appears to
conflict with an obvious interpretation of the social contract
and which avoids talking about social contract issues at all
doesn't seem to be well formed.
> Others have indicated
> [1] they think a position statement that passes with 3:1 majority would be
> okay, though it's not clear exactly why that would be okay.
Probably because the constitution says that supersession of foundation
documents is possible with a 3:1 majority.
Of course, it's still important the documents say what they have
to say clearly enough (otherwise you just get more arguments).
> > I just haven't
> > seen any such arguments, yet, that I'm comfortable advocating.
>
> *shrug* If you're going to make an informed decision it's important to
> consider all the possibilities; if no one else is advocating the issues,
> then that means you've got to come up with the pro arguments yourself as
> well as the rebuttals, and well, it's either that or make an uninformed
> decision.
At least for all the significant possibilities, yes.
[There's usually an infinity of possibilities, and we usually discuss
categories of possibilities.]
> > In particular, I don't see that disregarding the social contract entirely
> > is the right way to go.
>
> It might well not be; as far as I know no one's suggested it. But
> deciding that it's not the right way to go because other options have
> better outcomes is surely a better path than choosing not to think about
> the option, though; and working out exactly how strictly we expect the
> social contract to be followed seems a perfectly on-point question,
> even if "not at all" is ruled out as an acceptable answer from the start.
Hmm... this sounds sensible, but I'm having trouble grappling with
what it really means.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: