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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:21:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>         The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
>>  override the foundation documents,  so the release team can not ignore
>>  SC violations.
>>         I can make a formal interpretation of the constitution, if you
>>  wish. 
>   3. Individual Developers
>     3.1. Powers
>     An individual Developer may
>      1. make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their own
>      work;

        Does that mean I can just ignore the DFSG in my packages, and no
 one can override that? I don't think so. The constitution and ther
 foundation documents limit the powers we have; and allowing non-free
 crap does not seem like a "technical" decision to me. Sounds more like
 a non-technical social decision.

> The Secretary is not the Release Team's keeper.

        No. The secretary just decides on their own things under their
 purview.  I am not, if you notice, hacking dak.

> And the DFSG is not a "decision properly made under [the rules of the
> constitution]" because the DFSG predates the constitution and has
> never been amended or re-confirmed by General Resolution.
> (2004/vote_003 only amended the text of the Social Contract, not the
> DFSG.)  So there's no way that the constitution gives you special
> authority in disputes over interpretation of the DFSG, either.

        The constitution has wording on what the foundation documents
 are, and how they can be overridden. I am interpreting the constitution
 when it comes to my role, to the best of my ability to do so.

> (Even if it had been ratified by GR, I find the claim that the Secretary's
> powers include deciding whether a developer is "working against" a
> constitutional decision to be dubious at best.)

        I can only say what the constitution does or does not allow, and
 what powers the constitution confers on people. I have no idea of
 people are working against the constitution or  not.

>> > Even if some people think that set of choices is nonsensical, my
>> > understanding of the current situation is that the release team has
>> > ruled, as DPL delegates, that the current situation does not violate
>> > the SC sufficiently to warrant removing the relevant packages from
>>         I do not think that the constitution allows for
>>  "sufficiently". You can't supersede a foundation document "in a minor
>>  way" without a super majority vote.
> "supersede" means "replace with a newer revision".  The Release Team hasn't
> proposed doing anything of the sort.

        Overriding parts of the foundation documents as you please is
 tantamound to, and generally indistinguishable from, replacing the
 document (perhaps temporarily) with a new version.

        When I wrote that proposal, this is what I did have in mind.

Where love is there is no labor; and if there be labor, that labor is
loved. Austin
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: