Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

[Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com>]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +0000, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1.  Otherwise all
> options are treated equally.  Thus "splitting the vote" would only
> make a difference to the outcome if there is:
> 
> * a significant percentage of developers who want to change the social
>   contract only on the condition that we keep non-free; AND
> 
> * a significant percentage of developers who want to change the social
>   contract only on the condition that we drop non-free.
> 
> If neither of the first two options above actually defeats the default
> option by a 3:1 supermajority, it seems highly questionable to me that
> Debian should actually modify the social contract: if that is the
> case, then evidently the proposed change is too ambiguous.

While your reasoning is sound, for the most part, there is an additional
group of developers who might turn out to have the requisite 3:1 majority:

* those who want to change the social contract such that the decision
as to whether or not we maintain the non-free archive (and, if so, to
what degree) should be left up to the developers without any need for
any future supermajority votes.

The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to
some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority
vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people, and to
other people like a "no 3:1 vote needed on future decisions about the
distribution of non-free".  But it can't be both.

-- 
Raul