Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly
> > this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots?
> I think the idea is that we do one of them first and once that's done,
> decide how to proceed.
> If, for example, we were to drop SC 5, Andrew would drop his SC 5
> changes in the editorial changes GR.
He's free to introduce other proposals later, of course.
I don't see why he wants to do it that way, but I don't see the points
of quite a number of the things he's done.
> I'd strongly encourage people to keep proposals on the non-free ballot
> germane: They should all concern Debian's support (or non-support) of
> software that does not meet the DFSG.
My proposal fits that criteria.
> I'd also strongly encourage people to keep proposals on the editorial
> changes ballot germane: They should all concern wording changes with
> little, if any, effect on the meaning of the document.
My proposal fits that criteria as well.
> I think if we do that, the two should be fairly easy to reconcile.
Ok. If he's willing to hold off on his editorial changes till after the
vote on the resolution he introduced, and mine passes, that should make
his life fairly simple.
I've incorporated his changes wherever I've not rewritten the contract.
So all he would have to fix is the language I introduced. [Assuming no
one else sees the flaws that he sees -- if we get everything right,
he won't have to do anything at all.]
> > [And, since Andrew hasn't been
> > willing to state what problems he's trying to solve, it may very well
> > be that this is fine from Andrew's point of view as well.]
> I think Andrew considers non-free being on Debian's servers a problem
> in and of itself. This is, I imagine, not a technical problem but a
> political one to him.
I've asked him about this, and he his answer doesn't lead me to agree
> As for the editorial changes, I think he (and Branden, myself, and many
> others, who started and helped with those changes) believe that the
> problem is that the Social Contract is not as clear and eloquent as it
> could be.
I agree that the Social Contract is not as clear and eloquent as it
But I disagree that this is "the" problem -- it's "a" problem.
There's also the issue of what it should say, and why.
Figuring out "why" is what I'd classify as "the" problem. [I think
of this like fixing a bug -- there's lots of changes that can be made,
but the best fixes fit in with the design of the system you're working
on, and ad hoc quick fixes can cause more trouble than they're worth,
if they break the design of the system.]
> Historically, a lot of that was the result of the GFDL
> flamewar on -legal about the definition of "software." Some people were
> not clear it included documentation, but we received definitive
> clarification from Bruce Perens. See
> Actually, I believe some clarifications were discussed (strictly
> speaking, in OT threads) on -legal.