On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > 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, I've said over and over again that that's not what it means, and rationale 13 of my RFD would have made that explicit, I should think. > 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. It could actually be neither. The mechanism for disposing of the non-free distribution could be left unspecified by the Social Contract, just as the Social Contract doesn't mandate how, say, the severities in the BTS should be used. As I said elsewhere, whether the right body to decide on the fate of non-free is the Developers as a whole, the DPL, the Debian Archive Maintainers, or some other group, is an open question, and one that I do not think is terribly germane to the issue of amending the text of the Social Contract. If people are seriously concerned about this issue, then I would expect to see some discussion of it on -project. If we really are terrified that the FTP admins will instantly pull the plug on non-free in the event my GR (or something similar) passes, without a care for the wishes of the Developers, the DPL, or anyone else, then I'd say our problem is with the FTP admins, not with my GR. Otherwise, the raising of such scenarios seems to me nothing more than a scare tactic to frighten people away from voting to remove clause 5 of the Social Contract. My GR doesn't direct anyone to take any particular action at all. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | belly laugh. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature