Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

["Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>]

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:06 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
> > temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
> > practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
> > the free software community".
>
> I don't understand.
>
> Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
> distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
>
> If they prohibit it, then it is an override to distribute
> notwithstanding the prohibition.
>
> If they do not prohibit it, then no resolution is necessary.
>
> You seem to say an inconsistent thing: that they do prohibit it, and we
> can avoid that prohibition by calling it a "practical consensus" instead
> of an "override".  Surely, however, it is the effect that matters, and
> not the label you give it.

DFSG is a guideline and a target: we must no go far as the nearest point
we reached, but it still a guideline.
Consider:
- we never had a full DFSG Debian (also when DFSG was written)
- we have "RC" also on stable releases. What should we do in such cases?
  Block all dDbian website, all mirrors, etc. because it is clearly against
  our foundations? No.

Where to put the line? This is the main problem: we have different interpretations
and our foundation documents (and related discussions) doesn't provide us
a true (and clear) interpretation.
So I applaud the recent discussion to rewrite (better, clearer) our foundation
documents.

ciao
	cate