Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> ,----[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
> | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social
> | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future;
> | _AND_ the social contract should stop us from including anything that
> | doesn't comply with the DFSG in main
> `----
"main" is just the name of an archive section. The SC says that "Debian"
is 100% free, so I think we should go with that instead, regardless of how
DAK calls it.
> ,----[ The social contract is binding, but currently flawed ]
> | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal with:
> | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social
> | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future;
> | _AND_ it is and was a mistake to have the DFSG cover firmware because
> | we have not yet been able to limit Debian to only DFSG-free firmware
> | in a suitable way. This mistake should be corrected by amending the
> | social contract.
> `----
Would probably be a good idea to define firmware here. Besides, isn't there
an option in the gr_lenny vote that is basicaly equivalent to this?
> ,----[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ]
> | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> | social contract should apply to /almost/ everything Debian does, now
> | and in the future; _AND_ for the few cases where it should not apply
> | now, there should be an explicit GR affirming that variation (by simple
> | majority)
> `----
I don't like the "workaround" approach to supermajority requirements. If
we don't want 3:1, why don't we ammend the Constitution instead?
> ,----[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ]
> | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> | social contract is an aspirational document: while we aim to achieve as
> | much of it as feasible at all times, we don't expect to get it
> | completely right for some time yet. This includes DFSG-freeness of all
> | firmware
> `----
Doesn't that contradict the definition of "contract" ? Maybe a rename would
be in order.
> ,----[ The social contract is a non-binding advisory document ]
> | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> | social contract is a statement of principle only, and has no particular
> | force on the day to day operations of Debian, except in so far as it
> | influences individual contributors' actions.
> `----
How does this differ from the previous one in practice?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: