Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"MS" => Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
"CMC" => C M Connelly <c@eskimo.com>
CMC> Given that statement, if there aren't any other documents
CMC> that fall into this class, then perhaps the amendment
CMC> should only say ``Foundation Document'' or, even better,
CMC> simply specify the Social Contract/DFSG instead of
CMC> implying the existence of a class of documents.
MS> Preparing for the future here: we may deem some other
MS> document to be a foundation document in the future; and it
MS> would be nice if we already had a list, and only needed to
MS> modify that list to add a new document to that class.
Amusingly (?), I deleted the following paragraph from my message,
because I thought it would muddle the issue even more:
(Saying ``Foundation Documents'' leaves the door open to adding
additional documents that the Project members consider to be
foundational in the future, but that could just as easily be
done by the same constitutional amendment adding those
hypothetical documents.)
MS> I don't think creating this class of dc=ocuments, though
MS> we have only a few that fit, is a big deal.
Agreed.
MS> As to the social contract/dfsg issue; I think that
MS> arguably they can be deemed to be separate documents,
MS> perchance living in the same file by happenstance; in most
MS> correspindence since we have refeerred to them
MS> individually.
That was what I thought until I went and looked at the Social
Contract page (<http://www.debian.org/social_contract/>). That
statement is *not* present in the copy of the Social Contract on
my system (/usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt). The DFSG
is, however, only present in the social-contract.txt file, and not
as its own file.
If the paragraph at the top of the Web page is actually part of
the Social Contract that was voted on and approved, and not merely
an addition to the Web version meant to explain why the Social
Contract and the DFSG are together on the same page, then the DFSG
is officially part of the Social Contract, and not a separate
document.
If the paragraph on the Web page is not officially part of the
Social Contract, then it's open to interpretation. As it stands,
the Web page implies that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract
(and not a separate document), and the inclusion of the DFSG in
the social-contract.txt file from doc-base lends support to that
notion.
Maybe we need a vote to disambiguate the Social Contract and the
DFSG?
What did you think of the idea of requiring a 2:1 majority to
modify nontechnical policy documents? It doesn't make sense for
it to be easier to issue, modify, or remove policy documents
defining the Debian Project's relationship to the rest of the
world than to override (internal) decisions made by the Technical
Committee.
CMC
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space,
a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly c@eskimo.com SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and GNU Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE6CzqIzrFKeh3cmQ0RAi3EAJ48XLgIO5NGFAm4KtXPFg2y8CmbTQCgker/
G/++C3FJ7vkeF4jftC7+GL0=
=Jt6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: