Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:

> I think that is somewhat of an orthogonal issue. I don't think anyone
> would disagree that the vote:
>
>    We agree to ship the nvidia binary drivers in main
>
> conflicts with one of the foundation documents. At the moment, however,
> we could run that vote and since it doesn't explicitly modify one of the
> foundation documents, it would only require a simple majority. Now, if
> people think that a simple majority should be able to decide this, then
> fine, but drop the 3:1 requirement from the constitution. 

I have to say, I'm finding it rather frustrating that people keep
repeating this argument without apparently acknowledging that it's been
addressed.  If you don't agree with the response to this argument,
that's fine, but not acknowledging the rebuttal is getting on my nerves.
(It's possible, though, that you've just not seen the previous
discussion for whatever reason.)

To recap, the counter-argument is that such a *non-binding* position
statement is obviously nonsensical and hence people aren't going to
follow it even if it passes, which it won't because it's non-sensical.
In other words, you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument in a place
where there are other controls.  If a majority of people in Debian voted
for a non-binding position statement that so obviously, clearly, and
directly contradicts a foundation document, we have considerably more
problems than the question of a supermajority.

Furthermore, I think there's general consensus even among those of us
who believe that non-binding position statements should not require a
supermajority that such non-binding position statements should, if
ambiguous, have to clearly state whether they're modifying a foundation
document or whether they're non-binding before they go to a vote.  The
vote would therefore be on a position statement saying something like:

    The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
    consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.

If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
I would contend that you're essentially arguing there's such a serious
disagreement in Debian over this issue that we do not even share the
same language, terms, and basis for discussion.  I don't see that
pessimism supported by any of the previous votes or by the general
discussion here.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>