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

Re: The constitution and the social contract

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:

>  Thomas> Well, here are some questions.  Some should be easy to answer right
>  Thomas> away. 
>  Thomas> 1: What is the status of the putative ballot announced last month?
> 	Why can't we just forget the mishaps of the past and focus on
>  finding out what people want to do?

I'd love to!  So how about a statement from the Secretary like "that
ballot doesn't count, don't worry about it"?  "status" doesn't mean
"official results", it just means some explanation of whether that
vote will be ignored, posted, or what.   That's all.  It's a very easy
question.  It takes Darren saying "that ballot was a false start; no
votes will be published".  Very simple to say.  But Not Said.  For all
I know, Darren will emerge from the shadows next week and publish the
results of that ballot as a done deal.

>  Thomas> 2: Why is the vote page not even up do date?
> 	No one has had time to work on it? the archives of -vote are
>  not exactly secret, you know.

Well, there's been rather a long time for people to work on it.  If
the relevant person is overworked, then by all means, somebody else
should be found to do so.  Fortunately, our Constitution wisely
provides for this eventuality.

>  Thomas> 3: We need a ruling on Branden's claim that John's resolution has
>  Thomas>    expired under the constitutions idle resolutions clause.
> 	No we don't. What we need is is a decision on 3 issues:
>  a) Can we modify the social contract, and if so, what kind of
>     majority is required (simple, 2:1 super, 3:1 super, etc)
>  b) Do we want to modify the social contract, and remove bits of the
>     non free stuff therein, and, 
>  c) Do we remove vestiges of non free packages from Debian machines
>     and the BTS, or not.
> 	How we het these votes should really not be the issue (which
>  it seems to have become)

I agree with you here.

>  Thomas> It's not that hard to deal with.  Assuming that everyone is actually
>  Thomas> willing to actually do it, it should take no more than a three-hour
>  Thomas> conversation between Darren, Raul, and Wichert, to move forward.
> 	Seems like perhaps we should just forget the morass of mis
>  steps and step out and actually try to figure out what we want to do
>  rather than psend another year figuring out the propah protocol to
>  begin to try and figure out where we may eventually start trying to
>  do something about deciphering what our intentions are? 

Yep, I think that would be wise.  That's what the 3-hour conversation
would be.  

Reply to: