Raul Miller | 11 Nov 20:23 2002
Picon

Re: Proposal - non-free software removal

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:21:29AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I wonder what kind of majority is required to modify the Social Contract
> or the DFSG. I'ld expect them to have at least the same protection as
> the Constitution itself.

In fact, the social contract has never been ratified under the
constitution.  Informally, one of the things that Ian expected us to do
with the constitution is ratify the social contract and existing policy.

Unfortunately, we've never gotten around to that, and the exact status
of the social contract with respect to the constitution is somewhat
ambiguous.

Prior discussions on this very issue [getting rid of non-free] have been
so divisive that we wound up tabling the discussion in disgust.

Personally, I think before we take up a vote about changing the social
contract, we should take up a vote about what relation the constitution
has to the social contract.  And, since that vote would mix supermajority
and non-supermajority issues, before we tackle that we should fix the
voting system so it is unambiguous about these kinds of mixed votes.

And, it's my fault that we don't have an adequate draft for fixing the
voting system.  I'll try to submit one today.

FYI,

--

-- 
Raul

(Continue reading)

Manoj Srivastava | 11 Nov 21:17 2002
X-Face
Picon

Re: Proposal - non-free software removal

>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth <at> debian.org> writes:

 Raul> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:21:29AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
 >> I wonder what kind of majority is required to modify the Social Contract
 >> or the DFSG. I'ld expect them to have at least the same protection as
 >> the Constitution itself.

 Raul> In fact, the social contract has never been ratified under the
 Raul> constitution.  Informally, one of the things that Ian expected us to do
 Raul> with the constitution is ratify the social contract and existing policy.

 Raul> Unfortunately, we've never gotten around to that, and the exact status
 Raul> of the social contract with respect to the constitution is somewhat
 Raul> ambiguous.

 Raul> Prior discussions on this very issue [getting rid of non-free] have been
 Raul> so divisive that we wound up tabling the discussion in disgust.

	No, we actually went to having a GR proposed, wich is still
 alive, though currently on hold waiting for the voting GR.

 Raul> Personally, I think before we take up a vote about changing the
 Raul> social contract, we should take up a vote about what relation
 Raul> the constitution has to the social contract.  And, since that
 Raul> vote would mix supermajority and non-supermajority issues,
 Raul> before we tackle that we should fix the voting system so it is
 Raul> unambiguous about these kinds of mixed votes.

	Please see: http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0009
               and: http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0010
(Continue reading)

John Goerzen | 11 Nov 21:42 2002

Re: Proposal - non-free software removal

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:17:10PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> 	No, we actually went to having a GR proposed, wich is still
>  alive, though currently on hold waiting for the voting GR.

My understanding was that the previous GR was considered expired under
section A(5) of the Constitution.  If I was in error, that's fine.  In that
case, I would contemplate calling with the withdrawal for the 2000 draft so
that we may instead vote on the 2002 draft, which I believe is the better
one.  I'd like to see if anyone cares much one way or other about the 2000
or 2002 proposal.  If this happens, I'd intend to wait to issue the CFV on
the 2002 draft until after the other issues are decided.  Am I properly
dotting all my i's with this plan?

> 	Thank you. As soon as your draft is in, I'll move to open the
>  3 week discussion period.

Doesn't that discussion period automatically open once the draft is posted?

-- John

Manoj Srivastava | 11 Nov 22:33 2002
X-Face
Picon

Re: Proposal - non-free software removal

>>"John" == John Goerzen <jgoerzen <at> complete.org> writes:

 John> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:17:10PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> No, we actually went to having a GR proposed, wich is still
 >> alive, though currently on hold waiting for the voting GR.

 John> My understanding was that the previous GR was considered
 John> expired under section A(5) of the Constitution.

	Technically, yes. But at that time, when we tabled
 discussions, the understanding was when the election methods
 committee comes back with a recommendation, the discussions would be
 revived. 

 John> If I was in error, that's fine.  In that case, I would
 John> contemplate calling with the withdrawal for the 2000 draft so
 John> that we may instead vote on the 2002 draft, which I believe is
 John> the better one.

	Well, reviving the old draft would be done by reproposing it,
 so yes. 

 John> I'd like to see if anyone cares much one way or other about the
 John> 2000 or 2002 proposal.  If this happens, I'd intend to wait to
 John> issue the CFV on the 2002 draft until after the other issues
 John> are decided.  Am I properly dotting all my i's with this plan?

 >> Thank you. As soon as your draft is in, I'll move to open the
 >> 3 week discussion period.

(Continue reading)


Gmane