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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny (new proposal)

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 04:13:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Andreas Barth schrieb:
> > > In case any of the proposals get enough seconds, I would propose then:
> > > 
> > > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> > > | against each other. However during getting an release out of the door,
> > > | decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable release of the high
> > > | quality Debian is known for, release more or less on time, and to
> > > | minimize the usage of problematic software. We acknoledge that there
> > > | is more than just one minefield our core developers and the release team
> > > | are working at.
> > > | 
> > > | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> > > | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> > > | case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if necessary
> > > | authorize these decisions.

Since it seems that Andreas won't be ammending the text, I have been thinking
carefully about it.

I concluded that the implications are so severe that un-do two of the pilars
of the project.  On one hand, instead of working to produce a free OS, we'd be
working to produce an OS where being free is just an idealistic bonus.  On the
other, instead of a democracy, we would have an organization ruled by a few
selected individuals, against the will of the majority.

I'm responding to this by proposing the following alternate option:

| The Social Contract is our promise to the free software community.
| Neither the Release Team, nor any selected group of individuals, is
| empowered to ammend the Social Contract, or grant exceptions to it;
| Only the developers as a whole may do so, subject to the conditions in
| section 4 of the Constitution.
| We acknowledge that such exceptions have been granted in the past (for
| Sarge and for Etch), and that at the time of writing, a proposal that
| might grant a similar exception for Lenny is scheduled to be voted on.
| We encourage any developers who -now and in the future- feel that one such
| exception would be justified, to participate in its discussion and try to
| reach consensus that can be endorsed by the majority of the project.

Subject to the condition that, if my option gets enough sponsors, the Secretary
would accept including it with Andreas' in a separate ballot.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: