On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: > > I think it's the only formal or structural impediment, yes. But > > In which case this needs to be pointed out; I thought it was common knowledge how the archive administrators operated. At least up to a point. :) > since this is likely to be the last chance that the mere mortal > developers have of having any say in the process of elimination of > non free. I don't see why that should be the case. I would expect that you, as Project Secretary, would be well aware of the Developers' collective powers under section 4.1.3 of the Constitution[1]. > > 1) We may have archive admins who don't deliberately attempt to make > > decisions out of proportion to their authority; > > Is it beyond their authority? As far as I know, their authority isn't defined. I am presuming that the Project recognizes some limits of propriety, though, beyond which the archive admins could not operate without provoking a negative reaction. > > 2) We may have archive admins who feel a responsibility to the > > wishes of the rest of the Project; > > 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? The Social Contract neither mandates nor forbids that we have a mirror network, that we break main up into sections, that we implement a central package pool into which the distributions are collections of symlinks, or that we sequester new packages uploaded to the master U.S. archive from access by all developers until cryptographic source code can be submitted to the U.S. government pursuant to the EAR[2]. Is it your understanding that everything that is not foribbiden by the Social Contract is mandated by it? If not, then why does the elimination of a mandate to keep non-free mean a counter-mandate to remove it? > > 3) We may have archive admins who fear that their positions will be > > formalized, and their powers circumscribed, if they abuse their > > authority -- and the Golden Age would come to an end. > > > These are, however, purely speculative on my part. > > Quite. However, I think that your usual hyperbole may work > against you, There's no need to be redundant. Anyone who's read any message by you in reply to any message by me in the past five and a half years knows that you consider most of what I say hyperbole, that you feel it undermines me in the eyes of the rest of the Project, and that you feel I have serious character flaws which you waste no time in underscoring. :) In fact, you seem to spend far more energy attacking my character and arguments that you place in my mouth than you spend attacking anything I actually propose. Over in the "irrelevant amendments" subthreads you constructed not fewer than three straw men in one message[3] as an alternative to substantive discussion. > since it seems that if your characterization of our current situation > (re golden age) is true, Please read more carefully. All three of the points your are rebutting are hypotheticals. *If* we have archive admins who "fear that their positions will be formalized, and their powers circumscribed", then wouldn't they find preferable a situation under which their positions *aren't* formalized, and their powers *not* circumscribed? > then your proposal must > needs be inextricably intertwined with the act of removinf non > free. This is a complete non-sequitur. How do the personal feelings of the archive administrators have anything to do with the meaning of the Social Contract? > Hmm. I must rethink my initial reaction. It is fortunate for me, then, that I am accustomed to the mercuriality of your support for various positions of principle when they are espoused by people against whom you feel you can score rhetorical points in a dispute. I have come to understand it as a form of sport for you. [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution [2] http://www.eff.org/Privacy/ITAR_export/ [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00028.html -- G. Branden Robinson | Humor is a rubber sword - it allows Debian GNU/Linux | you to make a point without drawing branden@debian.org | blood. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Mary Hirsch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature