|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > April 2004 > Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
|
|
| Colin Watson 2004-04-28, 12:34 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 (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;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.
While I would certainly prefer this to "further discussion", I would
like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's
Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the
basis of that Option anyway. I talked to Jeroen, who says he's currently
busy with real-life tasks.)
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this standard
in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the following release.
The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
follows:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component.
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social Contract.
While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this standard in
those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next full release.
> Rationale:
>
> As a seconder of the earlier GR, I certainly do consider these
> amendments to be editorial in nature, as they are consistent with my
> understanding of the existing Social Contract; and I believe these
> clarifications are beneficial in the long term, because the ambiguities
> in the Social Contract led mostly to sterile arguments about whether the
> DFSG *should* apply to works we distribute that are not programs.
>
> It's just the timing that sucks.
>
> In talking with the Release Manager, it is apparent to me that his
> understanding of the previous wording of the Social Contract, while
> different from mine, is internally consistent; and that attempting to
> persuade him that a different interpretation should have held would do
> nothing to move the release forward, as I cannot in good conscience
> argue that he should be less principled in the enforcement of the Social
> Contract than he has been to date. I am therefore putting forth this
> proposal because my *own* principles hold that releasing sarge this year
> with the same blemishes that have existed since the beginning is better
> than releasing a sarge next year that has no non-DFSG content.
>
> 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 à vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern.
>
> I realize that others have other prospective GRs in progress, but I
> believe that it's important to bring a quick resolution to the current
> situation, and would therefore like to be able to start the clock on the
> discussion period ASAP. I am looking for seconds for this proposal, or
> barring that, amendments.
I largely concur with Steve's rationale above. However, having amended
the Social Contract already in a way that many of our developers feel
best expresses their principles yet being quite some distance away from
being able to meet those standards, I feel that the most honest approach
is to note in the Social Contract itself that we apologize for not
living up to those principles just yet. We can then get on with
releasing something that's the best we can do in the time we need to
satisfy those of our userbase who are frustrated with the age of the
previous release, and start removing or rewriting whatever's necessary
after that.
As well as being, in my opinion, more honest, amending the Social
Contract rather than resolving to ignore it means that the Release
Manager will no longer be in the position of either having to violate
the Social Contract or else having to postpone a full Debian release for
an as yet indeterminate period of time. (This also applies to Steve's
original proposal.)
The Social Contract as amended here does not require the removal of
non-free documentation or kernel drivers with binary-only firmware from
sarge or its point releases; but it restores the full force of version
1.1 with effect from sarge+1. It does not excuse any other DFSG
violations in sarge. I feel that we already have plenty of incentive to
release sarge in a short timeframe, and that we're well on the way to
doing so.
I'm looking for seconds for this amendment.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-04-28, 1:34 pm |
| On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> said:
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
> and kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to
> this part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this
> standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the
> following release.
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
> Debian will remain 100% free
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a
> non-free component.
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
> and kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social
> Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this
> standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next
> full release.
> I largely concur with Steve's rationale above. However, having
> amended the Social Contract already in a way that many of our
> developers feel best expresses their principles yet being quite some
> distance away from being able to meet those standards, I feel that
> the most honest approach is to note in the Social Contract itself
> that we apologize for not living up to those principles just yet. We
> can then get on with releasing something that's the best we can do
> in the time we need to satisfy those of our userbase who are
> frustrated with the age of the previous release, and start removing
> or rewriting whatever's necessary after that.
> As well as being, in my opinion, more honest, amending the Social
> Contract rather than resolving to ignore it means that the Release
> Manager will no longer be in the position of either having to
> violate the Social Contract or else having to postpone a full Debian
> release for an as yet indeterminate period of time. (This also
> applies to Steve's original proposal.)
> The Social Contract as amended here does not require the removal of
> non-free documentation or kernel drivers with binary-only firmware
> from sarge or its point releases; but it restores the full force of
> version
> 1.1 with effect from sarge+1. It does not excuse any other DFSG
> violations in sarge. I feel that we already have plenty of incentive
> to release sarge in a short timeframe, and that we're well on the
> way to doing so.
The only issue I have with this is as it stand that this shall
require another 3:1 GR to clean up the social contract after we
release sarge (or sarge +1, sarge +10, whenever we decide to clean
it).
Would you consider applying a sunset clause to the amendment,
so that post sarge we revert to the current SC, without needing yet
another GR? I don't think we should change foundation documents
anymore than we absolutely have to.
manoj
--
99 blocks of crud on the disk, 99 blocks of crud! You patch a bug, and
dump it again: 100 blocks of crud on the disk! 100 blocks of crud on
the disk, 100 blocks of crud! You patch a bug, and dump it again: 101
blocks of crud on the disk! ...
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2004-04-28, 1:34 pm |
| Colin,
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> While I would certainly prefer this to "further discussion", I would
> like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's
> Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the
> basis of that Option anyway. I talked to Jeroen, who says he's currently
> busy with real-life tasks.)
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this standard
> in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social Contract.
> While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this standard in
> those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next full release.
Well, first off: Your appended text and the revised first clause don't
match identically. (binary-only firmware is only in the former, 3.1
(codenamed sarge) only in the latter, for example).
But more to the point: While I see that your amendment has its merits,
I'm a bit nervous about changing the actual text of the SC *now* and,
obviously, again after Sarge releases (or do we keep it until sarge+1 is
out? Or forever?). I would consider the text rather ugly and a
historical cludge at that point and voting again next month (haha) to
revert it would be tiresome.
Now, in real-world politics, laws usually have a date when they are
placed into action a certain time after they've been voted on. Further,
laws that change how things are being implemented (see, e.g. exhaust
norms for new cars in California) are usually granted quite a while
(sometimes, years) until they become binding.
Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the
following:
"Changes to the Social Contract become binding for the release after the
one currently being worked on and are not applicable to already released
versions of Debian. However, the developers are being urged to implement
these changes in the currently developed release, if possible."
We should add some syntactic sugar to make it retroactively applicable
to the last GR, of course.
Michael
PS: In any event, I'd appreciate it if AJ would speak up and tell us the
preferred way he would like us to deal with this situation. I know
'Three's a charm' but I'd rather not apply this to GR's changing the SC.
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Chad Walstrom 2004-04-28, 1:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I feel that the most honest approach is to note in the Social Contract
> itself that we apologize for not living up to those principles just
> yet.
Such an apology is not necessary language for the Social Contract.
Updating the DFSG web page would be sufficient to inform the Debian user
of the current state of the project with respect to the two versions of
the SC we currently use. This could include your proposed apology.
We would then see something like this on the
http://w.d.o/social_contract page:
Debian Social Contract
Debian, the producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system, have created the
Debian Social Contract. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) part
of the contract, initially designed as a set of commitments that we
agree to abide by, has been adopted by the free software community as
the basis of the Open Source Definition.
[Insert the proposed apology.]
[Insert explaination and links to the General Resolution.]
Version 1.0(link) ratified on July 5, 1997 affects Releases 1.3 to 3.0
of Debian and the upcoming release 3.1 (codenamed "Sarge").
Version 1.1(link) ratified on April 26, 2004. Supersedes Version 1.0
ratified on July 5, 1997 and affects Releases of Debian following the
upcoming release 3.1 (codenamed "Sarge").
[Display Version 1.0 in-line]
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-04-28, 1:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> said:
>
>
>
>
>
I'm sorry, there was a textual inconsistency here due to poor editing.
See below.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> The only issue I have with this is as it stand that this shall
> require another 3:1 GR to clean up the social contract after we
> release sarge (or sarge +1, sarge +10, whenever we decide to clean
> it).
>
> Would you consider applying a sunset clause to the amendment,
> so that post sarge we revert to the current SC, without needing yet
> another GR? I don't think we should change foundation documents
> anymore than we absolutely have to.
It needs to stay until sarge+1 is released, since point releases of
sarge are affected by the apology. However, yes, I'd be happy with such
a clause.
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
the following release.
The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
follows:
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component.
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
the next full release.
2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
for deliberation.
Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
proposed amendment.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-04-28, 1:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:07:25PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> Such an apology is not necessary language for the Social Contract.
I think it's very much part of the Contract, given that it's the
Contract itself from which we're apologizing for slipping.
> Updating the DFSG web page would be sufficient to inform the Debian user
> of the current state of the project with respect to the two versions of
> the SC we currently use. This could include your proposed apology.
Also /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt. I think we might as well
amend the SC anyway, since I think my amendment ought to require
supermajority anyway.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-04-28, 2:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
>
> 2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
> shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
> of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
> for deliberation.
>
> Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
> proposed amendment.
Yeah, this makes a wee bit more sense than vorlon's proposal because it
doesn't impose a fixed time limit and instead deals with it in relative
terms. I don't see any seconds yet, so here's one.
--
Josip Rodin
(signed)
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-04-28, 2:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Well, first off: Your appended text and the revised first clause don't
> match identically. (binary-only firmware is only in the former, 3.1
> (codenamed sarge) only in the latter, for example).
>
> But more to the point: While I see that your amendment has its merits,
> I'm a bit nervous about changing the actual text of the SC *now* and,
> obviously, again after Sarge releases (or do we keep it until sarge+1 is
> out? Or forever?). I would consider the text rather ugly and a
> historical cludge at that point and voting again next month (haha) to
> revert it would be tiresome.
I think both these points you've raised are addressed in the modified
amendment (er ...) that I posted some minutes ago. What do you think of
that?
> Now, in real-world politics, laws usually have a date when they are
> placed into action a certain time after they've been voted on. Further,
> laws that change how things are being implemented (see, e.g. exhaust
> norms for new cars in California) are usually granted quite a while
> (sometimes, years) until they become binding.
>
> Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the
> following:
>
> "Changes to the Social Contract become binding for the release after the
> one currently being worked on and are not applicable to already released
> versions of Debian. However, the developers are being urged to implement
> these changes in the currently developed release, if possible."
This seems to be roughly what Steve Langasek's proposal does.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-04-28, 2:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> While I would certainly prefer this to "further discussion", I would
> like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's
> Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the
> basis of that Option anyway. I talked to Jeroen, who says he's currently
> busy with real-life tasks.)
As a point of order, I am rejecting this amendment to my proposal, but
would very much like to see it gain the required seconds to appear on
the ballot. If it's permitted, I even second it myself.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this standard
> in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social Contract.
> While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this standard in
> those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next full release.
>
>
> I largely concur with Steve's rationale above. However, having amended
> the Social Contract already in a way that many of our developers feel
> best expresses their principles yet being quite some distance away from
> being able to meet those standards, I feel that the most honest approach
> is to note in the Social Contract itself that we apologize for not
> living up to those principles just yet. We can then get on with
> releasing something that's the best we can do in the time we need to
> satisfy those of our userbase who are frustrated with the age of the
> previous release, and start removing or rewriting whatever's necessary
> after that.
>
> As well as being, in my opinion, more honest, amending the Social
> Contract rather than resolving to ignore it means that the Release
> Manager will no longer be in the position of either having to violate
> the Social Contract or else having to postpone a full Debian release for
> an as yet indeterminate period of time. (This also applies to Steve's
> original proposal.)
>
> The Social Contract as amended here does not require the removal of
> non-free documentation or kernel drivers with binary-only firmware from
> sarge or its point releases; but it restores the full force of version
> 1.1 with effect from sarge+1. It does not excuse any other DFSG
> violations in sarge. I feel that we already have plenty of incentive to
> release sarge in a short timeframe, and that we're well on the way to
> doing so.
> I'm looking for seconds for this amendment.
| |
| Philippe Troin 2004-04-28, 2:34 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
>
> 2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
> shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
> of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
> for deliberation.
>
> Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
> proposed amendment.
Seconded in this current form.
Phil.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkCP8+kACgkQMrxzW26vf4cgigCf
d55svQGl1cAMr9qsLUVa7IMW
pNoAn2hjnmAo5DVGbeSTWdcW269UGCML
=MPUa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Banck 2004-04-28, 2:34 pm |
| (Shuffling around the text due to l33t rhetorical abilities...)
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> This seems to be roughly what Steve Langasek's proposal does.
Well, he is only concerned with this specific GR and the Sarge release.
I'd think it be worthwhile to have something more general.
[...]
> I think both these points you've raised are addressed in the modified
> amendment (er ...) that I posted some minutes ago. What do you think of
> that?
I think it's the best one so far. But I still have two problems with it:
1) I believe that changing the SC should be a very infrequent thing.
Moreover, I don't know whether I like having temporal passages in it.
Your point of having it sitting in /usr/share/doc is valid, of course,
but I /guess/ that it would be more important to get the point accross
to our current and possible future users through mass-media, which could
be done with a similar GR, but without modifying the SC again as well.
2) What are we going to do next time? I guess we're all a bit more alert
to these matters now, but IMHO it makes sense to clarify this. I don't
know what you others think and I couldn't find an obvious place in the
constitution off-hand (however, I did not check thoroughly) where to put
this, but having a 'does not have to affect current and past releases'
clause for those kinds of changes looks appealing to me right now.
That said, if nobody else thinks my points are worthy to consider, I'll
support your modified amendment. In the end, our opinions seem to be
rather orthogonal, we can still have a look how to prevent this mess
next time when we've cleaned up a bit.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Barth 2004-04-28, 3:34 pm |
| * Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) [040428 18:25]:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> While I would certainly prefer this to "further discussion", I would
> like to propose the following amendment. (Alert eyes will note that it's
> Option C from Jeroen's post yesterday; I drafted the text that forms the
> basis of that Option anyway. I talked to Jeroen, who says he's currently
> busy with real-life tasks.)
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this standard
> in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the following release.
Though I understand some advantages of this, I think it will clutter
the SC. Therefore, I would prefer to have this as clause 6 with a
title like "Our standards were not always so strict", "Freedom of
software is going to be stricter now" or similar.
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
> [...]
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social Contract.
> While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this standard in
> those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next full release.
These texts are slightly different.
Another annotation: This is not only valid for sarge, but also for
woody etc. So I'd like the following change ".. sarge) _and_ _before_
will ...".
> I'm looking for seconds for this amendment.
I second hereby your proposals, without or with the small changes I
proposed above (or that others are going to propose).
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Guido Trotter 2004-04-28, 5:34 pm |
| On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Hi,
I second this amendment.
Guido Trotter
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
>
> 2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
> shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
> of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
> for deliberation.
>
> Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
> proposed amendment.
>
> --
> Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Bas Zoetekouw 2004-04-28, 6:34 pm |
| Hi Colin!
You wrote:
> I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
>
> Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
>
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
>
> 2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
> shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
> of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
> for deliberation.
>
> Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
> proposed amendment.
Seconded.
--
Kind regards,
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2004-04-28, 7:34 pm |
| On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:19:58 +0200, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> said:
> I second hereby your proposals, without or with the small changes I
> proposed above (or that others are going to propose).
You forgot a sig.
manoj
--
Know Thy User.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2004-04-29, 9:34 am |
| On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
> 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> Social Contract:
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the following release.
>
> The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> follows:
>
> Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
> "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its
> components will be free according to these guidelines. We will
> support people who create or use both free and non-free works on
> Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> component.
>
> We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
> kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
> part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
> not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
> the next full release.
>
> 2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
> shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
> of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
> for deliberation.
Seconded.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
| |
| Frank Küster 2004-04-29, 10:34 am |
| |
|
|
|
|