Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
packagers) is expressly defined by the constitution.
The constitution says:
“A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. New
Foundation Documents are issued and existing ones withdrawn by amending
the list of Foundation Documents in this constitution.“
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time that this is not the
case, you should assume that we're not changing our common goal but that
we're discussing the interpretation that we make of it or that we're
discussing the compromise that we can currently accept in order to
reach our common objective (as defined by the foundation document).
And this is a prerogative of the project: we as a whole (as defined by a
simple majority), should be able do make decisions on how Debian will
achieve its goals without fearing to be blocked by the interpretation of
one of its member (be it the secretary).
And I know that it's the job of the secretary to rule dispute about
interpretation of the constitution but the constitution also says:
“The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and
reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the
Developers.“
And I believe that your interpretation doesn't fit the above rule.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: