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
> 3. Individual Developers
> 3.1. Powers
> An individual Developer may
> 1. make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their own
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
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C