Debian Developers - Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

Author

Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

Duncan Findlay

2004-04-27, 11:33 pm

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Debian Project,
>
> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> distributes,
>
> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
> serve our goals or the interests of our users,
>
> hereby resolves:
>
> 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian
> Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without
> further cause for deliberation.

I wish to propose the following amendment:

That point 2. above be changed to read:

2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
further cause for deliberation.

Rationale:

> A fixed four month period should (based on current projections) give us
> ample time to release sarge, while not allowing so much time that
> maintainers are left to think that resolving the status of non-program
> components of Debian vis ? vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern.

While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge,
without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not
release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best
to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect
rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although
on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but
it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may
result in an inferior product.

I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by
September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just
in case.

Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you
accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for
this amendment to the proposal.

Thanks,

--
Duncan Findlay

Steve Langasek

2004-04-27, 11:33 pm

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I wish to propose the following amendment:

> That point 2. above be changed to read:

> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
> Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
> the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
> further cause for deliberation.

> Rationale:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge,
> without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not
> release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best
> to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect
> rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although
> on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but
> it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may
> result in an inferior product.

> I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by
> September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just
> in case.

> Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you
> accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for
> this amendment to the proposal.

There are two primary considerations influencing my choice of a fixed
period instead of delaying the enactment relative to sarge's release:

- as mentioned, a fixed period leaves people less likely to think this
is something they can defer indefinitely (since as we all know, "after
sarge" is "indefinite" ;P), as just because it may be "sarge-ignore"
doesn't mean it should be allowed to languish (merely treated with a
priority similar to "important" bugs)

- as a release assistant, I don't want to have to deal with crazies
claiming that I'm deliberately delaying sarge's release to foster
further infiltration of non-free docs in main. :P

While building a consensus around your amendment would address the
second point, I don't think it addresses the first; so I think I must
reject this amendment. I don't object at all to you getting seconds for
it on its own, though.

Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Wouter Verhelst

2004-04-28, 4:33 am

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>
> I wish to propose the following amendment:
>
> That point 2. above be changed to read:
>
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
> Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
> the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
> further cause for deliberation.

I second this proposal, as amended.

--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune

Daniel Burrows

2004-04-28, 9:34 am

I second this amended GR. While I understand Steve's concern, I think
that the actual result of sarge not making the September deadline will
be a second GR to push the deadline back again. I'd rather just tie the
changes in wording to Sarge's release and be done with it.

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay <duncf@debian.org>was heard to say:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>
> I wish to propose the following amendment:
>
> That point 2. above be changed to read:
>
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
> Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
> the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
> further cause for deliberation.
>
> Rationale:
>
>
> While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge,
> without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not
> release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best
> to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect
> rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although
> on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but
> it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may
> result in an inferior product.
>
> I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by
> September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just
> in case.
>
> Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you
> accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for
> this amendment to the proposal.

--
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
| "We've got nothing to fear but the stuff that we're |
| afraid of!" -- Fluble |
\------- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org --------/

Bas Zoetekouw

2004-04-28, 10:33 am

Hi Duncan!

You wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>
> I wish to propose the following amendment:
>
> That point 2. above be changed to read:
>
> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
> Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
> the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
> further cause for deliberation.

I second this proposal, as amended.

--
Kind regards,
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+