Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Bas Wijnen <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the
>> secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an
>> amendment so far as I can tell.
> It says "according to the requirements for a new resolution", which
> seems to allow things proposed as a new resolution to really be
I believe that you really think that, but I don't understand how you could
get that from that text. How does saying that the procedure for making an
amendment involves the same requirements as making a new resolution imply
that new resolutions can be turned into amendments?
> I admit it's not really clear, and can as well mean that an amendment is
> something different which only has the same requirements.
Until this thread, I would have thought that it was completely clear. I'm
still not managing to see another reading than the one that to me is
obvious. (Although I guess that's other people's reactions to my
understanding of what the SC says, ironically.)
>>> I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very
>>> vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a
>>> release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly
>>> not shared by everyone.
>> Surely you realize that this phrasing is highly controversial and
>> confrontational, given that the release team doesn't believe that
>> they're ignoring the DFSG?
> Are you talking about my wording, or about the wording of the options?
I was talking about your wording.
>> I don't believe they are either.
> Neither do I. The reason I asked was because you seemed to say that
> they were, and that FD would allow them to continue doing that. I now
> understand that you didn't mean that.
I definitely wasn't saying that. I just checked all of my messages to
this thread and I have never used the word "ignore" except in response to
your messages citing things that you're saying, so I'm not sure how you
could have gotten that idea, but I apologize for giving the impression.
I think I understand where your wording came from now. It was an attempt
to restate what you thought my position was? It's very different from my
actual position, so I didn't recognize it at all.
>> I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of
>> ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their
>> interpretation of how the DFSG is applied.
> I think you are talking about me here.
Among others, but yes.
> I haven't actually seen anyone making this accusation. The only time it
> was mentioned was when I asked you if this was what you meant. To be
> clear, I immediately followed it with a statement saying that I didn't
> actually think so myself.
Okay, it appears to have all been a misunderstanding. I'm not sure how we
managed to misunderstand each other to that degree, but I guess it
> I think I agree with this... However, it means that if anyone (delegate
> or other DD) is violating a foundation document, only a 1:1 majority is
> needed to allow it by not deciding to forbid it.
Right, via a delegate override.
> That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at
> least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed.
This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer
override to enforce that sense of the meaning.
Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are
explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement
about their interpretation.
(Just to be clear, in this parcticular case, I continue to believe that
changing the text of the SC and/or DFSG is superior to issuing a project
statement about their interpretation, since doing the former is going to
be much more conclusive and long-lasting and will avoid, hopefully, doing
this again for squeeze. But that doesn't change my analysis of what the
proposal originally put forward was actually intended to do.)
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>