Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Joel Baker wrote:
First, superceding RFCs is relatively easy because they re clearly
numbered, straightforward texts which are regularly released. Doing this
wiht the DFSG or Social Contract or Constitution makes little sense;
We probably won't do things like having RFC 1, 2, 3, etc. as you
mentioned, and then having the Social Contract be STD 1, etc. I was
personally thinking of versioning, as you mention below:
Somewhat more clear, given the way things are structured, would be
versioning (either by version number or date) any modifications, with later
versions superceding earlier ones (but all good version tracking keeps
older versions easily fetchable, right? *couch*).
I was thinking of something along the lines of (with a hypothetical
Social Contract change):
On February 29, 2100, Debian's developers _voted to supersede_
the _previous Social Contract, version 1_
Debian Social Contract
Version 2
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software and Almost Free
Documentation
...
_voted to supersede_ would be a link to the vote, and _previous Social
Contract, version 1_ would be a link to the previous social contract.
Feburary 29, 2100 would, of course, be the date that we decide that
documentation doesn't really need to be free (see the -legal archives...)[0]
The previous version would have a similar note:
On February 29, 2100, Debian's developers voted to _supersede
this version of the social contract._ The new document is
_Debian Social Contract, Version 2._
Debian Social Contract
Version 1
1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
...
My personal favorite would require some (relatively minor) effort from
someone (probably the Secretary); a document which has sidenotes or
footnotes/references stating when sections have been elided, what the
origional section was, the rationale for change, the date of confirmation
(or end of vote?), etc. Though, really, this could always be reconstructed
from a versioned arrangement.
This would work fine for minor changes; however, if done for large
amendments the document would become cluttered and difficult to read. We
generally don't do minor changes.
Certainly, the secretary could prepare a marked up version to show what
changed from the previous version. Also, proposed changes would likely
contain a similar thing as well as rationale, and would be at the vote
link. The new version of the document could also include rationale.
[0] Please don't reply to this without considering long and hard the
date.
Reply to: