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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

[I see that we're now repeating discussions already had up-list, so this
will probably be my last post to this subthread.]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:08:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Nor is it anything short of absurd for the Secretary to declare that a
> > resolution amends a Foundation Document when the actual resolution says
> > nothing of the sort, and the resolution proposer explicitly rejects this
> > interpretation.[1][2][3]

> So if I propose a resolution that says, say, "No uploads made on Tuesday
> shall be removed from the archive for violations of the DFSG" and then I
> reject the interpretation that this is a supercession of the DFSG,
> you're saying that such a resolution only requires a simple majority?

Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.  Position
statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only override
decisions that have actually been taken.  Either way, if 50%+1 of the
project wants to order a project delegate to do something that contradicts
the Social Contract, there's no constitutional basis for having the
Secretary prevent them from doing so.  *The Secretary is an officer of the
constitution, not of the Social Contract*.

If the Secretary believes a resolution is inconsistent with the Social
Contract, let him appeal to his fellow developers to keep the promise they
each made to uphold the SC.  If the resolution passes anyway, let him decide
not to implement it in his own work as a developer (either by deciding that
the resolution is a non-binding statement, or by stepping aside under 2.1.1
of the constitution).  But in no event should he use his position to bias
the outcome of the decision-making process itself!

The alternative, that passing with a 3:1 supermajority would cause the text
of such a resolution to be appended to the DFSG when this was not specified
in the resolution itself, is at least as absurd as allowing developers to
pass non-binding and possibly nonsensical resolutions.

> You seem to be saying that what is determinative is the resolution
> proposer's statement.  I find this implausible in the extreme.  The
> Secretary is at least an official who we can hope will be neutral; the
> resolution proposer is, by definition, not neutral.

I'm saying that we should not be trusting in the subjective judgement of
either the proposer or the Secretary when deciding that a resolution
supersedes a Foundation Document; that supersession is an explicit act.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: