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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:18:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:43:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The side effect being that removing the non-free section of our archive
> > will only need a normal GR, or even a decision of the tech comitee,
> > instead of needing a 3:1 (super) majority, like it does now, right ?
> Not exactly.  It changes the removal of non-free from being something
> that is effectively forbidden by the Social Contract, to something that
> isn't forbidden by the Social Contract.
> There isn't a neat bin the issue gets sorted into.  Do we need a GR to
> change the eligibility requirements for inclusion in contrib or
> non-free?  How about subdividing contrib or non-free?  How about adding
> sections to main?  Have we ever had a GR about these kinds of issues
> before?  (The latter is a rhetorical question; I don't think we have.)
> How we deal with these questions under the existing Social Contract is
> precisely how we'd deal with the potential elimination of non-free if my
> proposed amendments are accepted.
> I expect we'll continue to handle archive organization issues much the
> same way we always have, unless we decide to change that.  But that's
> orthogonal to my proposal.  All my proposed amendment does is make
> available a new option to those who make large-scale decisions about the
> Debian archive.

Still, currently you need a 3:1 majority to drop it, which is the vote
you are currently having, while after this vote you only need a normal
majority, or nothing.

But you don't go and say this clearly.


Sven Luther

Reply to: