[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

"Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>Organization:srivasta"@debian.org wrote:
> There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and
> implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me:

I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is
suitable as any official statement from the Debian project, let alone a
foundation document. In particular, note the use of "me" above; I
noticed other minor problems while reading it but do not have time for a
thurough edit. 

I prefer not to have my name in any foundation document of the Debian
project, as it could have unforseen consequences later.

> when we first accepted the Social Contract and the DFSG, there was an
> interval before we came into compliance (indeed, it is arguable if we
> were ever completely in compliance -- see above about it being an on
> going process). Indeed, there was a release of a minor version just
> days after the DFSG was accepted, which by no means complied.
> We also did not yank out older releases, or drop support for them
> immediately (as shown by the minor release).

And given that precident, I really have a hard time understanding why
this most recent change has been made into such a big deal. I think it
says unfortunate things about some of the directions Debian has gone in
the intervening years. Nevertheless, I suppose this document is as good
a way to deal with it as any, or at least good enough to be an option on
the ballot.

> With this document, we, the Debian Project, do so affirm this. We
> affirm that while we are working towards a change in the long term
> goals and identity of the project, or any change in a foundation
> document, the needs of the users shall not be catered to during the
> transition period.

"shall not"? Surely you mean "shall".

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: