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

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

> On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > ,----[ 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?

If you don't like an option, preference a different one. That's the way
(preferential) voting works.

The reason some people might like the workaround option is it makes it
clear what the goal is, and requires specific, clear, repeated effort to
/not/ meet the goal. They might like that either because you think it'll
make people think it's easier to meet the goal than not, or because it
puts the focus where we want it (front and centre in the social contract:
100% free), but still makes it clear to everyone what's going on (project
wide vote acknowledging we haven't freed some firmware yet, eg).

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
> to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
> include SC/Constitution amendments to make them explicitly state that
> position

All of those proposals are "position statements on issues of the day",
they don't purport to modify the social contract or the DFSG or the
constitution; they just give the project's understanding of where things
are at. As such they only require a simple majority to pass.

As far as voting for a position statement along the lines of "the social
contract doesn't matter, we'll upload Microsoft Word into main, yay!",
I believe that would also require a simple majority (1:1) to pass, and
would hope that a vast majority of the project would join me in voting
against it. If a majority of developers are making position statements
out of line with the social contract, I don't think there's much point
being part of some honourable minority trying to keep them in check.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: