On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Hi, Since: 1. The changes in the social contract where editorial, and didn't change its meening, but they only clarified it for those who beleived that debian distributed non-software 2. It was already decided to do something on those issues (GFDL docs, firmware, etc), but the actions were delayed for sarge+1 I hereby second this proposal. Guido Trotter > The Debian Project, > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > distributes, > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > hereby resolves: > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > further cause for deliberation. > > > Rationale: > > As a seconder of the earlier GR, I certainly do consider these > amendments to be editorial in nature, as they are consistent with my > understanding of the existing Social Contract; and I believe these > clarifications are beneficial in the long term, because the ambiguities > in the Social Contract led mostly to sterile arguments about whether the > DFSG *should* apply to works we distribute that are not programs. > > It's just the timing that sucks. > > In talking with the Release Manager, it is apparent to me that his > understanding of the previous wording of the Social Contract, while > different from mine, is internally consistent; and that attempting to > persuade him that a different interpretation should have held would do > nothing to move the release forward, as I cannot in good conscience > argue that he should be less principled in the enforcement of the Social > Contract than he has been to date. I am therefore putting forth this > proposal because my *own* principles hold that releasing sarge this year > with the same blemishes that have existed since the beginning is better > than releasing a sarge next year that has no non-DFSG content. > > A fixed four month period should (based on current projections) give us > ample time to release sarge, while not allowing so much time that > maintainers are left to think that resolving the status of non-program > components of Debian vis à vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern. > > I realize that others have other prospective GRs in progress, but I > believe that it's important to bring a quick resolution to the current > situation, and would therefore like to be able to start the clock on the > discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this proposal, or > barring that, amendments. > > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer -- Guido Trotter Jabber ID: ultrotter@jabber.quaqua.net Public PGP key available on: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~trotter/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature