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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:43:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >	What do you mean, without a mandate?  If the GR passes with a
> > > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
> > Would you be happy if Branden added a clause along the lines of:
> > 	Further, the acceptance of the GR is not intended as a mandate
> > 	to actually remove the non-free or contrib sections of our
> > 	FTP archive.

> For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:

> 	Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the archive,
> 	and no longer supported by the Debian project.

> or

> 	Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be supported by
> 	the Debian project.

> on the other hand would be unobjectionable. If you confuse those two
> points, whichever happens (non-free staying or being removed), one or
> the other group is going to (justifiably IMO) feel cheated. Put both on
> the ballot if you like. But clarity is a good thing.

Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the opinion
"change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but punt on the
question of its actual removal", which is also a valid viewpoint.  If
people really feel it's important to tie the non-free removal question
to the SC amendment question, then, it seems to me there ought to be
three ballot options.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: