Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ======================================================================
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
> 4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
> 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
> agree with a 2:1 majority.
> - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
> - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
> - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> - software must meet.
> - They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
> + 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
> + statements.
> + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
> + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
> + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> + software must meet.
> + They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
> + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
> + critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
> + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debian
> + Social Contract".
> + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
> + supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
> + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
> + Documents in this constitution.
> 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
> property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
> s.9.1.)
> ======================================================================
> It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
> Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
> wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> ======================================================================
Editorial note: If you're not the "me" that is speaking here then you
should clarify that or rephrase. IIRC you're quoting Branden.
I also think the rationale is at odds with the proposal, because the
work entitled "Debian Social Contract" includes the DFSG.
(Its title seems to vary a bit; doc-debian calls it "Debian GNU/Linux
Social Contract". Was that the original title?)
This inclusion isn't accidental; point 1 specifically says "As there
are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we
use to determine if software is "free" below."
Richard Braakman
Reply to: