[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Fri Dec 19 14:00, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:
> > On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get
> >> across.  Foundation documents do not have some sort of Platonic True
> >> Meaning that exists outside of the governance process.  The words mean
> >> what people with the authority to make decisions decide they mean, and
> >> those decisions have no special protection or role in the constitution.
> >> Therefore, in a very real sense the DFSG and SC mean whatever a simple
> >> majority of developers decide that they mean in each specific case
> >> where a GR is applied.
> > Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense
> No, a 3:1 requirement is still required to change or replace those
> documents, and as long as they're not changed or replaced, they will have
> a powerful persuasive effect on voting.  This was also Raphael's point.
> We all agreed to follow them.  This is not a negligible effect.

I mean that you can effectively ignore them through a series of 1:1
votes which have the same effect as rewriting them. The repeated
'release X with firmware' votes we've had are an example of this. We
could rewrite the DFSG to always allow them which would need 3:1, but
why bother when we could just have a 1:1 vote every release.

> > I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
> Whether it's the intent or not, I believe what I've spelled out is the
> practical effect.  If you want some other effect, you *have* to spell out
> who decides what the meaning is.  You cannot rely on everyone "just
> knowing" the meaning.  People aren't going to agree, and someone has to
> pick which meaning is correct.

Sure, which is what we have now. Hence I will be seconding all options
on Manoj's RFC because I think we need to pick a position and spell it
out explicitly. We clearly disagree about what the current position is.

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: