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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin told this:

> You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a
> foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides
> what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation
> documents and so needs 3:1?  You? The Secretary? Someone has to, and
> I think the developers should.  Because in the end, if the
> developers go completely mad and decide that EVERYTHING IS DFSG
> FREE, 3:1 won't stop them for long. They could just elect a
> like-minded DPL, replace the Secretary with someone more pliant,
> hold another vote...

        Please feel free to start the proceedings.  Until then, I
 shall continue to act in a manner which I feel is a correct
 interpretation of my constitutional duties.

> The point is, you either trust the developers
> to be sane, or you don't and therefore think that you, or someone
> who agrees with you, should simply decide things by fiat. I don't
> accept that.

        As I have said, I do not see this as a matter of trust or
 honor or any of those things. I see this as a correctness of ballot

> And it is quite possible for the developers to want to
> change/suspend the foundation documents, while being perfectly aware
> of what they're doing.  Hence 3:1. Like in the vote to delay the
> "editorial changes" until post-Sarge. See, the system can work.
>> Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely
>> those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive.  In this
>> way, the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be
>> defeated.  Ah, now it turns out that this works both ways.
>> Suddenly we hear calls for strict majoritarianism.
> I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for
> "strict majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the
> developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the
> DFSG, as is their prerogative.

        Adedato's amendment seeks to interpret the DFSG, and is being
 ``allowed'' to do so.  Interpretation of the DFSG is not the
 isseu. However, something that contravenese a clear dictum of the
 DFSG is a different story.


"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." Peter da Silva
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: