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

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 	There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> >  views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> >  happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
> >  including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
> >  itself.
> I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
> nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
> invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
> serve distinct functions.
> > 	The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
> >  the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
> >  specifically.
> > 
> > 	You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
> >  clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
> >  his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.
> I share your interpretation.  It might be wise to add some information
> to the rationale statements on proposals A and C:
>   If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the
>   Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian
>   Free Software Guidelines as distinct works.
> (I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even
> yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the
> independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe
> enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it.  We've had a
> completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project
> Secretary before [not you], and we survived.)
> I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for
> proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the
> separateness of these works.  This issue came up immediately prior to
> the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments
> were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody
> proposed an amendement.  As a practical matter, I am not sure there is
> time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds
> before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try.


Notice that this interpretation is fine with me too, i just wanted to
make this clear before the voting start, in order for there not being
confusion during the voting period, and since the subject has been
raised in past discussion, as you said.


Sven Luther

Reply to: