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

Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>     (d) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall
>         reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the
>         project's Social Contract. This shall include both an online
>         consultation with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and
>         the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at
>         DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the
>         original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997.

/me still fails to see why we need a GR to say we will open new discussions
about the topic later on. Really, seems like lot of noise to me, in particular
because the vote can neither force a discussion to happen, nor prevent it.

> I have changed (c).iii to not refer explicitly to Debconf as I feel progress 
> should be reported and discussed with the whole Debian community, not just 
> at Debconf. Others have made similar comments. I see no problems with 
> organizing a discussion at DebConf.
> I also fixed a typo, added "developers" and removed "and debate" in (d). 
> These changes have already been OKed by aj.
> With this wording this proposal could perhaps be an alternative to Frederik
> Schuller's proposal (<20060830210654.GA8675@mail.lowpingbastards.de>) with 
> as main difference that:
> - his proposal assumes there is consensus about the DFSG/SC and merely
>   postpones work on the implementation, while

There is indeed a consensus resulting from the various super-majority votes
preceding the sarge release. This is what we have to work with. Anything else
needs a new GR, and a 3:1 supermajority one even.

Like said, there is nothing in a GR which can force or prevent such a
discussion to happen later on, and since the DPL had announced his intention
to push for it, and given a timeframe, saying such in a GR is useless.

> - this proposal aims to structurally revisit the whole subject after the
>   release of Etch and leaves more room for more liberal eventual solutions.

> Key point of this proposal is: do not decide now, focus on releasing Etch 
> and have a proper discussion about the SC and consequences/implementation 
> of options after the release.

Indeed. I still wonder why you need to propose your own GR about this, instead
of working with Frederik's GR, and maybe propose an amendment to it which will
less insist on the current consensus about the DFSG/SC issues.

I notice that we have informal agreement of most of the remove-non-free
proponent that this GR may be acceptable to them, that we have at least
Andreas Barth of the RMs and most of the kernel team behind the proposal, and
that Steve mentioned retiring his proposal in favour of something like
Frederik's proposal (not sure exactly what his intentions are on this though),
and the DPL mentioned postponing his own proposal in order to follow
Frederik's one.

So, why do another GR, instead of working with the current proposal, and
helping improve it ?

Sven Luther

Reply to: