Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Luk Claes]

Hi

There seem to be some disagreements about the terms in the subject. As
far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear though and would not need any
vote to clarify:

Overriding is only used in combination with decisions. You cannot
override a document or its interpretation/meaning. You can only override
a DD's (or delegate's) decision.

Amending is changing something written like a foundation document or a
proposal. As far as I can see you can only amend explicitly so there
should be no confusion.

A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.

Supersession of a Foundation Document is replacing a Foundation Document
with another version: introduce a new one, ammend one or remove one.

According to the Debian Constitution there is only a 3:1 majority needed
to ammend the Constitution or supersede a Foundation Document.

So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone disagrees
with above interpretations?

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
> foundation document.

[...]

> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
> disagrees with above interpretations?

The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
or the constitution.

Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.

Furthermore, the statements must be non-technical.


Don Armstrong

--
Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster.
 -- Anthony Towns

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Matthew Johnson-12]

On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
> > disagrees with above interpretations?
>
> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
> or the constitution.

Indeed and there is the case of temporary exceptions. Does saying "we
will release with non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation
document? I would say yes. Does saying "we will release Lenny with
non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation document? There seems to
be less agreement on this. I think it does, but the previous discussion
showed that some people disagree.

Anyway, I'm going to try and push that discussion a bit more in a
couple of hours, so probably best to discuss in that context

--
Matthew Johnson

[Luk Claes]

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
>>> disagrees with above interpretations?
>> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
>> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
>> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
>> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
>> or the constitution.
>
> Indeed and there is the case of temporary exceptions. Does saying "we
> will release with non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation
> document? I would say yes. Does saying "we will release Lenny with
> non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation document? There seems to
> be less agreement on this. I think it does, but the previous discussion
> showed that some people disagree.

This always sounds very awkward to me. So if we would just not fix bugs
about non-free stuff everything is ok, but if we want to release it has
either to be fixed very quickly or get a vote that modifies a foundation
document? Sorry, but I did not and will not agree with that.

We will not release with random non-free stuff, nor will we release with
easily fixable non-free stuff, nor will we release with non-free stuff
where it's clear that upstream does not care in fixing it. We will
release with non-free stuff that does not get fixed in time where
upsteam is working on it though.

I don't see why this would need any vote, though if you really think
it's useful to have a vote on this, so be it.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:

> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
>> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
>> foundation document.
>
> [...]
>
>> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
>> disagrees with above interpretations?
>
> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
> or the constitution.

> Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.

        If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
 document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
 you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
 around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
 proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?

        That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
 foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
 with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?

        if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
 contradiction of a foundation document mean?

        Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
 used in a  foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
 foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
 over FD?

        How binding _are_ the foundation documents?

        manoj
 free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
 distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
               morning 8:00am"
 Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march

--
Actors will happen in the best-regulated families.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@...> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Luk Claes]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
>>> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
>>> foundation document.
>> [...]
>>
>>> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
>>> disagrees with above interpretations?
>> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
>> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
>> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
>> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
>> or the constitution.
>
>> Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.
>
>         If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
>  document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
>  you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
>  around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
>  proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?

Of course not. If a position statement contradicts a foundation document
it's time to update the foundation document accordingly or drop the
position statement again.

>         That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
>  foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
>  with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?

You do realise that a majority needs to agree with it before it turns
into a position statement?

It's not because a position statement is not binding that a foundation
document would also not be binding...

>         if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
>  contradiction of a foundation document mean?

It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get
an update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

>         Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
>  used in a  foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
>  foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
>  over FD?

This is actually asking if a position statement can clarify a foundation
document but put in a twisted way AFAICS...

>         How binding _are_ the foundation documents?

Interesting question as you seem to be one to take the Constitution with
a twisted interpretation when it fits you best in some previous occasions.

>  free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
>  distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
>                morning 8:00am"
>  Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march

I guess this is a bad attempt at a joke?

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation document
> (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are you
> saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
> around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
> proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?

No. I'm in fact saying that developers can ignore the position
statement on that basis.

> if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
> contradiction of a foundation document mean?

Next to no value, as far as I'm concerned.

> How binding _are_ the foundation documents?

Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.

Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation documents
actually mean. A position statement about the foundation documents
only serves to state what a majority of the project thinks the
documents say; it doesn't change what the documents actually say.[1]

As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the position
statement in carrying out their duties (though they can of course be
overridden by GR.)


Don Armstrong

1: Fundamentally though, I find the whole process of making position
statements about the foundation documents tedious. If you think the
documents meaning is unclear, propose amendments to the documents to
make them clearer.
--
I really wanted to talk to her.
I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit.
 -- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Matthew Johnson-12]

On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...

Matt
--
Matthew Johnson

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...

No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

--
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/
slangasek@...                                     vorlon@...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
>>>> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
>>>> foundation document.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
>>>> disagrees with above interpretations?
>>> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
>>> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
>>> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
>>> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
>>> or the constitution.
>>
>>> Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.
>>
>>         If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
>>  document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
>>  you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
>>  around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
>>  proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?
>
> Of course not. If a position statement contradicts a foundation
> document it's time to update the foundation document accordingly or
> drop the position statement again.

        Err, so why not do it in one pass? Why this strange two pass
 vote?

        How do you want to handle the case where a 51% majority wants
 the position, but no more than that? There is not enough votes to
 actually change the foundation docs in that case.

>
>>         That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
>>  foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
>>  with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?
>
> You do realise that a majority needs to agree with it before it turns
> into a position statement?

        Sure. A bare majority, let us suppose.

> It's not because a position statement is not binding that a foundation
> document would also not be binding...

        So why do you think the foundation document is not binding? (I
 must confess to having some problems parsing this statement).


>>         if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
>>  contradiction of a foundation document mean?
>
> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get
> an update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.

        Why this torturous path? Why not see if there are actually votes
 to change the FD, rather than creating and dropping position
 statements?


>>         Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
>>  used in a  foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
>>  foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
>>  over FD?
>
> This is actually asking if a position statement can clarify a
> foundation document but put in a twisted way AFAICS...

        If by clarifying, youmean redefining all the words, sure.

>
>>         How binding _are_ the foundation documents?
>
> Interesting question as you seem to be one to take the Constitution
> with a twisted interpretation when it fits you best in some previous
> occasions.

        Aha. The first attack on the man, rather than the contents of my
 arguments. Jesus, it sure did not take long  for the conversation to
 descend to the pits.


>
>>  free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
>>  distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
>>                morning 8:00am"
>>  Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march
>
> I guess this is a bad attempt at a joke?

        What joke? That might me my "interpretation", or, as you put it,
 the "clarification" of the SC.

        manoj
--
In my experience, if you have to keep the lavatory door shut by
extending your left leg, it's modern architecture.  -- Nancy Banks Smith
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@...> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
>> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
>
>> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
>> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
>> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
>> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
>
> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
> a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

        Does anyone have authority, a posteriori, to declare that any
 given position statement is in contradiction of a foundation document?

        Or is it only deliverable by a GR?

        This will be interesting. So, in order to determine whether a
 foundation document is being modified, we first ask the  project, via a
 GR, whether it is indeed a contradiction. _THEN_ we hold a vote, with
 or without the 3:1 majority, based o the previous vote, to see if it
 passes or not.

        I think Joey Hess is right.

        manoj
--
Program: Any assignment that cannot be completed with one telephone
call. Kelvin Throop III, "The Management Dictionary"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@...> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:


> Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.

        Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.

> Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
> reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation documents
> actually mean. A position statement about the foundation documents
> only serves to state what a majority of the project thinks the
> documents say; it doesn't change what the documents actually say.[1]
>
> As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the position
> statement in carrying out their duties (though they can of course be
> overridden by GR.)

        I think I can live with that.

        Wait.

        Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any
 majority to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements?
 nifty.

        manoj
--
Behind every great man, there is a woman -- urging him on. Harry Mudd,
"I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@...> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
>
> Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.

It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to
uphold it. [Given the anguish with which we struggle on -project and
-vote to figure out what the SC says, it's seems clear that large
numbers of us feel that we should be upholding the SC.]

> > As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the
> > position statement in carrying out their duties (though they can
> > of course be overridden by GR.)
>
> Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any majority
> to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements? nifty.

Sure. If we as a project are headed towards self-destruction, there's
really no way for the constitution to stop us. We always have to fall
back on the continued desire of developers to work together to create
the most technically excellent, free operating system possible.


Don Armstrong

--
This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related
program activities, and the letter G.

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Ben Finney-5]

Don Armstrong <don@...> writes:

> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
> >
> > Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
>
> It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
> uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to
> uphold it.

That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone
in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group.

I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all
new members to declare they will uphold it.

--
 \      “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access |
  `\      to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet |
_o__)                                     highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Matthew Johnson-12]

On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> > > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
>
> > I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
> > statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
> > the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
> > place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
>
> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
> a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

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.

If the project thinks this _should_ require 3:1 then I would like that
enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't have to resign over
it as well, next time this comes up. If that is the case, then of course
we also need to decide who makes that decision. you say "for the entire
project"---surely a position statement conflicts with a FD or it
doesn't, whole project or no.

Matt
--
Matthew Johnson

[Ben Finney-5]

Matthew Johnson <mjj29@...> writes:

> On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
> > project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in
conflict with the foundation documents “for some people”.

Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with
being false for other people?

[…]

> If the project thinks [proposals which conflict the foundation
> documents, but don't say so explicitly] _should_ require 3:1 then I
> would like that enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't
> have to resign over it as well, next time this comes up. If that is
> the case, then of course we also need to decide who makes that
> decision. you say "for the entire project"---surely a position
> statement conflicts with a FD or it doesn't, whole project or no.

Absolutely agreed with this. We may not agree on *whether* a given
proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, but (unless we want to
have the ludicrous notion that the conflict both exists and does not
exist) someone needs to decide which is the case in order to determine
whether a supermajority requirement applies.

--
 \      “I like to skate on the other side of the ice.” —Steven Wright |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, May 02 2009, Ben Finney wrote:

> That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone
> in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group.
>
> I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all
> new members to declare they will uphold it.

        Such was my understanding as well.

        manoj
--
Cheit's Lament: If you help a friend in need, he is sure to remember
you-- the next time he's in need.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@...> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

Matthew Johnson <mjj29@...> 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@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

Ben Finney <ben+debian@...> writes:
> Matthew Johnson <mjj29@...> writes:
>> On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:

>>> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
>>> project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.

> This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in
> conflict with the foundation documents “for some people”.
>
> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with
> being false for other people?

Of course it can be!  That would only not be true if we had unanimity
over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,
or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical
meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which similarly
we do not.

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Clint Adams]

On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>     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.

Would your statement still apply if you replace "NVidia drivers" with
"non-free kernel firmware"?  Since I view those as equivalent, and
the latter seems far more dangerous, I do think the pessimism is
warranted.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...