Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
>> PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the
>> terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.
>
> I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
> examlpes. I'm maybe not using the terminology you'd like, but I hope
> you can see what I mean. Here they are again:
>
> 1. Option X conforms to a foundation document (clearly not 3:1)
> 2. Option X changes a foundation document (clearly 3:1)
> 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
document is the previous option.
> 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
> 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
> want to override the FD (?)
> 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say
> which of 2-5 it is.
4-6 are normal position statements AFAICS.
> 1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like.
>
> 3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but
> we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release".
This one would be in 4-6 AFAICS.
> 4. is things like "we think that firmware can be its own source, so
> shipping blobs is fine"
>
> 5. is something like "Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs. This
> does not override the DFSG", which I don't think makes any sense.
One cannot override a document.
As the DFSG is a document that state our guidelines of what is free, I
don't see how it would get changed even temporary when we would have a
vote on 'Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs'.
> Now, I understand you don't like the use of 'override' when describing
> option 3, I'm happy to describe it as something else, but _I_ think that
> the constitution at the moment requires 3:1 majority for this sort of
> vote. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is
> why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset.
Well, what I propose to do is to read the constitution and use its terms
instead, which would ease these discussions a lot AFAICS.
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: