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

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com) [040601 11:40]:
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > We, Debian, reaffirm that our priorities are our users and the free
> > > software community. We keep to that, both are our priorities. We
> > > don't intend to give one of them up for the other. We strongly
> > > believe that, in the long run, their interests are the same.
> > That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
> > this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
> > discussion here?
> See the last part of the proposal.

The last part of the proposal only indicates that we will apply
"common sense," which is what we have (hopefully) been doing. That
still doesn't say anything specific about the controversial classes of
work which I assume you are concerned with.
> Because this proposal does speak about what the Social Contract
> promises, and the Social Contract does in fact not only speak about
> the Free Software Community, but also about our users. A GR that
> only speaks about one part of the promises is putting some
> priorities on the different promises in the Social Contract.

Yes, but this vote is dealing with the ramifications of GR_003 and
what is included in the next release of Debian, not when the next
release of Debian will (or should) occur . Such a resolution should be
dealt with on its own merits, not cloaked within a resolution dealing
with a totally separate problem.

> This proposal does very clear adopt a certain policy for the
> Release.  I can't see any nebulous concept here, and overruling a
> decision is very clear, according to 4.1.3 of the Constitution
> (well, I should have written "overwrite" instead of "overrule").

You just say that you overrule his decision, without indicating
exactly which classes of work you will allow in that aren't currently
allowed. Hint: Look at the way the tech ctte deals with their

> > Finally, this resolution seems to conflict with the social
> > contract as it stands.
> That's your interpretation of the social contract. With my
> interpretation of the social contract, proposal F conflicts with the
> social contract, as it ignores our users.

I'm at a loss to understand what, if anything, proposal F has to do
with proposal G.

> > This conflict should be resolved within this proposal by recinding
> > appropriate sections of the contract, or inserting specific
> > language to the contract itself.
> Please accept the fact that any document is conflicting with itself
> and/or has holes. Please don't try to convert Debian to a
> law-producing company.

I don't think anyone here is interested in seeing us adopt legalistic
language. However, the resolutions that we do adopt should be clear
and obvious. Laywers thrive in situations where the law is in
conflict. While I don't think we should waste our time searching for
conflicts, when they are obviously apparent, they should be dealt

Don Armstrong

Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
 -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php


Reply to: