Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:55:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> ----- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> > 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*.
> Is now an inappropriate time to start a GR to formally recognize the
> Social Contract as a component of the constitution? The notion that the
> Social Contract (our purpose and motivation) is less binding that the
> Constitution (how we get things done) seems nonsensical in the extreme.
I think you misunderstand. I'm bound by the Social Contract because I've
*agreed* to uphold it in my Debian work. That makes it more binding, not
less; developers don't have to agree to uphold the constitution a a
condition of becoming DDs.
Trying to prevent 50%+1 of the project from willfully ignoring their promise
by writing provisions into the constitution is totally missing the point.
Either the people involved are upholding the SC according to *their*
understanding of it, in which case no one individual should have the
authority to decide for Debian that they're wrong; or they don't care about
keeping their promises, so trying to get it written into the constitution is
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/