Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:53:40 -0800, Benj Mako Hill <email@example.com> said:
> The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may
> not be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went
> ahead anyway they would either need to be ignorant of the immensely
> controversial nature of removing non-free or simply not care. In
> either (IMHO) unlikely case, their decision could be overruled by
> the developers.
The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
(indeed, the whole point is to remove such a proscription).
> I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that they would move
> ahead with something so clearly controversial, public, and central
> in Debian's history without a mandate.
What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
>> If this proposal passes, wouldn't it be a mandate to also remove
>> non-free, and the admins shall be acting in accordance with the
>> wishes of the developers?
> Branden's justification makes it *explicitly* clear that this is not
> the case. I don't see how anyone could see that as a mandate as its
> worded and justified in a way that explicitly claims that this is
> not the case.
I don't see that in the GR. And branden's intent is
irrelevant; if the project unanimously choses to drop section 5 from
the sc, at least I would consider it as a clear indication of a
No excellent soul is exempt from a mixture of madness. Aristotle
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C