On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I propose the following resolution: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free > > section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free > > section. Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be > > disabled as soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active > > support of the non-free section. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This resolution violates the social contract, so cannot be passed. I > therefore call on the secretary to reject it on procedural grounds. > > HTH, HAND. :) You're completely incorrect. The resolution, if passed, may not be enforceable, but there is no procedural bar within the Constitution to passing a general resolution that is contrary in intent to anything at all. If passed, and if the Social Contract has not been amended in a compatible fashion in the meantime, all this means is that "enforcement" of the general resolution would have to be suspended until the tension is removed -- whether by having another GR to retract Mr. Suffield's, or by amending the Social Contract. This GR, if passed, could remain in uneforceable limbo for a long time, but that's no bar to the Project expressing its will via the GR process. At worst, it makes more explicit some form of tension or conflict within the Project, and given that we claim "We Won't Hide Problems"[1], I don't view that as particularly problematic. Perhaps you'd care to quote language from our Constitution that contradicts my position. Just to help you out, I'll note that Mr. Suffield's proposal is clearly specific and technical in nature. It does not: * describe the goals of the Project; * describe the relationship of the Project to other free software entities; or * describe nontechnical policies such as the free software license terms that Debian software must meet. For my part, I will refrain from closing my message with dismissive and disrespectful little acronyms. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract -- G. Branden Robinson | A celibate clergy is an especially Debian GNU/Linux | good idea, because it tends to branden@debian.org | suppress any hereditary propensity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | toward fanaticism. -- Carl Sagan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature