Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5

["C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"AJT" => Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
"CMC" => C.M. Connelly <c@eskimo.com>

    AJT> (please don't cc me on list messages)

Sorry.  Won't happen again.


    CMC> My point was that if the section on non-free software in
    CMC> the Social Contract was tweaked to remove specifics about
    CMC> how Debian will support non-free software, the Social
    CMC> Contract could qualify for untouchable manifesto status.
    CMC> Whether that would be desirable is an open question.

    AJT> It makes more sense to me to allow the people governed by
    AJT> particular rules (such as the social contract, the
    AJT> constitution, etc) to be able to change those rules as
    AJT> they see fit, even if we don't see a reason right now why
    AJT> we might ever (again) want to change them.

I agree.  The debate here would be over whether the Social
Contract counts as ``rules the Debian Project follows'' or as a
foundational statement that can be modified by policy documents
issued by the Project as time passed and circumstances change.
Because of the nature of the Social Contract (and especially the
DFSG), it makes sense to make these documents modifiable, but it
should be difficult enough to do so that people will really think
hard about whether the changes need to be made.

The point is that the Social Contract (and the DFSG) are the core
definitions of the Debian Project, and one of the most visible
manifestations of the Project to the outside world.  It should be
hard to mess with those.  The Constitution, on the other hand, is
an internal document -- it mainly affects developers by defining
how the organization functions.  (That's the argument I've seen
made for only providing a link to the Constitution on the
Developers' Corner page and not on the main page.)


    AJT> AIUI, the Australian Constitution is amended by changing
    AJT> words, but it's generally (frequently? usually?
    AJT> sometimes?) printed with both the original and new
    AJT> phrasings concurrently, with the old form crossed out or
    AJT> the new form underlined, or similar, so it's possible to
    AJT> see what's changed.

Hmm.  That method probably makes it easier to interpret than the
U.S. Constitution, which requires you to read (or know) the entire
document to be sure you have all the information affecting a given
question available.

Is there some mechanism to preserve older versions of the Debian
Constitution?  (A CVS archive somewhere, maybe?  Or
digitally-signed archive copies?)

   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/>

iD8DBQE6C1SszrFKeh3cmQ0RAk1RAKDLBf60F7vbeERilS38Vpq/ucYLpACgnxAB
IECeEwyM/Nu+zvMoQlm3AHo=
=j7fq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----