I have a series of questions concerning recent proposals for the Debian
Project. I am a long-time user of Debian, but not a developer. While
I understand and accept that I have no official standing in Debian's
decision making system and have no vote, I feel that my long-term use
and commitment to Debian gives me a legitimate interest in the status
and outcome of these proposals.
1. John Goetzen recently made a proposed General Resolution, to which
Anthony Townes suggested an amendment. Both the original proposal and
the amendment have had various developers post seconds to them. The
web site http://www.debian.org/vote does not list the proposal or
amendment yet. What is the current parliamentary status of the
proposal by John Goetzen and the amendment by Anthony Townes?
2. The proposal by John Goetzen calls for a modification of the Debian
Social Contract. Some have suggested that such a modification is
allowed by Clause 4.1.5 of the Debian Constitution ("Issue nontechnical
policy documents and statements"), while others claim that that
particular clause does not apply to amending the Social Contract -- and
that there is no Constitutionally valid method of amending the Social
Contract. It has also been suggested that amending the DSC is
equivilant to amending the Debian Constitution, and thus falls under
4.1.2, and requires a 3:1 supermajority. As far as I have seen, most
are agreed that the Project Secretary's opinion should decide.
What Constitutional authority, if any, is there for amending the Social
Contract? What level of majority or supermajority is needed to enact an
amendment to the Debian Social Contract?
3. If the original proposal requires a supermajority and the amendment
(which does not amend the DSC) requires only a majority, how will the
vote counting and determination of the results of the ballots be done?
I hope to receive a reply to these questions soon.
Buddha Buck email@example.com
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice