On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > 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 (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; 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. > While I would certainly prefer this to "further discussion", I would > like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's > Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the > basis of that Option anyway. I talked to Jeroen, who says he's currently > busy with real-life tasks.) As a point of order, I am rejecting this amendment to my proposal, but would very much like to see it gain the required seconds to appear on the ballot. If it's permitted, I even second it myself. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with: > > 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the > Social Contract: > > We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and > kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this > part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this standard > in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the following release. > > The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as > follows: > > Debian will remain 100% free > > We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is > "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software > Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its > components will be free according to these guidelines. We will > support people who create or use both free and non-free works on > Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free > component. > > We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and > kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social Contract. > While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this standard in > those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next full release. > > > 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. > > I largely concur with Steve's rationale above. However, having amended > the Social Contract already in a way that many of our developers feel > best expresses their principles yet being quite some distance away from > being able to meet those standards, I feel that the most honest approach > is to note in the Social Contract itself that we apologize for not > living up to those principles just yet. We can then get on with > releasing something that's the best we can do in the time we need to > satisfy those of our userbase who are frustrated with the age of the > previous release, and start removing or rewriting whatever's necessary > after that. > > As well as being, in my opinion, more honest, amending the Social > Contract rather than resolving to ignore it means that the Release > Manager will no longer be in the position of either having to violate > the Social Contract or else having to postpone a full Debian release for > an as yet indeterminate period of time. (This also applies to Steve's > original proposal.) > > The Social Contract as amended here does not require the removal of > non-free documentation or kernel drivers with binary-only firmware from > sarge or its point releases; but it restores the full force of version > 1.1 with effect from sarge+1. It does not excuse any other DFSG > violations in sarge. I feel that we already have plenty of incentive to > release sarge in a short timeframe, and that we're well on the way to > doing so. > I'm looking for seconds for this amendment.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature