Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Thu, Dec 18 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No other body for enforcement of the DFSG is defined in the
> constitution. It's up to individual developers to determine for
> themselves whether their actions are in keeping with the DFSG/SC, and
> with the promise they made when they became DDs to uphold those
> principles in their Debian work. No one else, with the exception of
> the project as a whole by way of GR[1], has the power to decree that a
> developer's understanding of the DFSG is wrong.
This, then, should also apply for the developer who is serving
as the secretary. Or you shpould amend your statement here, to say that
all developers, with the exception of the secretary, interpret the DFSG
in performing their duties.
> Well, I mean, obviously we can all shout at each other on the mailing lists
> until the person we think is wrong gives up and quits, too, but that's not
> exactly a constitutional power.
> This is why having an "interventionist" secretary that decides a
> priori that certain interpretations are incompatible with the DFSG is
> so problematic and the cause of so much outrage on the mailing lists -
> because regardless of whether it's done with malice (which I don't
> believe it is), the effect is that the secretary assumes the power to
> interpret the foundation documents and his personal interpretation of
> the DFSG suddenly become paramount. You (appear to) happen to agree
> with Manoj's understanding of the implications of the DFSG for the
> lenny release. That's fine; I'm not going to tell you that you're
> wrong to think that. But that doesn't make it ok for you, or the
> secretary, to impose this interpretation on the project except *by way
> of* the GR process.
The job of the secretary is to figure out the ballot, and to
figure out which options fall afoul of the 3:1 mojority requirement
as decreed by the constitution. As you so persuasively argue, the only
person who can interpret the DFSG for the developer who is performing
as a secretary is the developer themselves -- or the developers via a
GR.
Seems like every single vote that touches things related to the
SC will force the secretary to be "interventionist" -- since
intervening is their job.
> [1] ... or the DAM by summarily expelling them from the project, I guess...
Yes, I found that option rather elegant. Much faster than having
to wait until the secretaries term ran out.
manoj
--
In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset.
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: