On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> ______________________________________________________________________ > >> > >> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates > >> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change > >> and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. > > > Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the > > opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it > > is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may > > want to more easily change it. > > > Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we > > don't have ambiguities later on. > > There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose > views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere > happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us > including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian > itself.
Yep, and this is, i think, something that needs clarification before the vote starts, maybe even to go in the rationale before the ballot is officialized. > The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social > contract, and can't be treated differently. A 'part', i suppose you wanted to say. > The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in > the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them > specifically. Ok, that is no problem, the real question is about variant C. > You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to > clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying > his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. Ok Branden, what is your opinion on this ? Could you clarify the wording on this, altough if i remember well, you made your position already clear previously on this list, but a clarification in the rationale going on the ballot would be a good thing. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
