Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> ______________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
> >> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change
> >> and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.
>
> > Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the
> > opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it
> > is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may
> > want to more easily change it.
>
> > Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we
> > don't have ambiguities later on.
>
> There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
> views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
> happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
> including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
> itself.
Yep, and this is, i think, something that needs clarification before the
vote starts, maybe even to go in the rationale before the ballot is
officialized.
> The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social
> contract, and can't be treated differently.
A 'part', i suppose you wanted to say.
> The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
> the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
> specifically.
Ok, that is no problem, the real question is about variant C.
> You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
> clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
> his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.
Ok Branden, what is your opinion on this ? Could you clarify the wording
on this, altough if i remember well, you made your position already
clear previously on this list, but a clarification in the rationale
going on the ballot would be a good thing.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: