Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> Given that, I suggest we have a series of proposals and
> amendments, each in a separate email, sponsored and seconded
> independently, that could look something like this below:
>
> ,----[ 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
> `----
Sorry for stepping in so late - I simply don't have time to read all
those mails. What you seem to have forgotten an option like
,----[ 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
, _AND_ the social contract
should stop us from releasing anything that doesn't comply with the
needs of our users
`----
Which makes it clear that this is a bogus discussion: As long as our
priorities are our users AND free software, we cannot let only one of
both make the single criterion for our actions.
Even an option like this:
> ,----[ 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
> `----
is still focussed on free software only, and also feeds the illusion
that in some time point in the future we would have sorted out all
issues with software freeness (and will only then start to tackle this
other thing, users?)
> I think we need this clarification, so people no longer accuse
> other people of malfeasance based on a flawed understanding on the
> correct status of foundation documents.
I am sure this wouldn't help at all, except if we'd vote for the first
option, which I believe would mean forking: Orthodox Debian which never
releases, and a derived or related distribution which would be
comparable to Debian as it is.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Reply to: