[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:
> 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.

Nevertheless, the document entitled "Debian Social Contract" includes
both parts, plus an introductory paragraph.  The part titled "Social
Contract with the Free Software Community" is the one commonly referred
to as the "Social Contract" on its own, though it depends on context.
You can verify this at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.

> 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.

I reported it as a bug and you chose to ignore it.  You are of course
free to twist that into somehow being my fault for failing to report
it more vigorously.  The opinion you stated was:

   Well, then, shouldn't this amendment be accepted?  We can ensure that
   this interpretation gets "read into the record", as it were.
   It is Manoj's proposal that treats the two documents disjunctively.  If
   that's incorrect, it should be fixed.

(where "this interpretation" refers to mine, which you quoted directly

I thought this meant you agreed with me, and would issue a new proposal
to give the alternative you intended.  Now I see that you intended to
keep the wording but add an interpretation that contradicts it.

Since my problem is with the rationale, not with the wording, what
amendment could I have proposed?  I prefer the wording of C to that
of A because it's more accurate.

> Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options
> are free to rank "further discussion" as their first choice.

No, I'll vote B A F C.  Proposal A's list is redundant but unambiguous.

Richard Braakman

Reply to: