Seconded, with s!judgemen.!judgement.! Simon
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Here is the current version > > manoj. > > I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide > guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a > change occurs in a foundation document like the social contract, and > also provides specific remedies to the current dilemma that we find > ourself in. This GR proposal is related to the GR currently in > discussion for deferring of the changes made in GR 2004_003, and would > be on the same ballot, and is an alternative to the GR currently in > discussion. > > I hereby propose that we amend the constitution to add to the list of > foundation documents the document attached in this proposal, titled > Transition Guide. The context diff follows. > > > âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ > > 1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as > critical to the Project's mission and purposes. > > 2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled `Debian > - Social Contract' and `Debian Free Software Guidelines'. > + Social Contract', `Transition Guide' and > + `Debian Free Software Guidelines'. > > 3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its > supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and > existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation > Documents in this constitution. > > > âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ > > The attached Transition guide is: > > Transition Guide > > A working guide to achieve the transition for changes in Foundation documents > containing explanations and Rationale, and defining > guidelines for future transitions > > > The Social Contract represents the core commitments of the Project. > The Social Contract leaves its marks in many ways; it is deeply > intertwined with all parts of the Project. Potentially, any change to > the Social Contract has major ramifications, and may require a period > of potentially deep changes to the roots of the Project before it can > come into compliance with the changed Contract. > > Meeting our commitments as described in the Social Contact is an > ongoing process. Whenever we change these commitments, we may need an > interval of time before we can approach compliance. Unless we shut > down the Project completely - abandoning users and our developers - > the regular activities of the Project must continue while we work > towards compliance. > > There is precedent for a gap between ratifying a change to the > foundation documents of the Project and implementing dictates of that > document; when the Project first accepted the Social Contract and the > Debian Free Software Guidelines, there was an interval before we came > into compliance with those then-new documents. Indeed, a minor version > was released just days after the Debian Free Software Guidelines were > accepted, and this release by no means complied with the new > commitments. > > We also continued to support older non-complying releases, and did not > make them unavailable to our users. > > The binding principle here is that we have to balance the needs of our > users and the need to make Debian strictly free. As one developer has > said: > > In my opinion, the needs of the free software community take > precedence in the context of adopting new packages, in the setting > of release goals, in our choices about infrastructure and > philosophy, and of course in the context of any development work > we do. > > In my opinion, the needs of our users take precedence in the > context of security fixes, in the context of support for packages > and systems we've released, and in the context of the quality of > our work. > > We, the Debian Project, do so affirm this judgmen. While we are > working towards complying with a change in the goals or identity of > the Project, or towards compliance with any change to a foundation > document, the needs of our users will be catered to. This may mean > that for a limited time, Debian will not be compliant with the new > Social Contract. > > Whenever a change to our foundation documents takes place, the > activities required to provide ongoing and proactive support for the > Debian user community shall continue. This includes, but is not > necessarily limited to, providing security updates for > previously-released versions of Debian, providing point-release > updates to previously-released versions of Debian, preparing for the > next (compliant) release of Debian, actually releasing the current > non-compliant version of Debian if such a release is imminent (as well > as any further updates to that version of Debian), and providing all > the Project's infrastructure such as bug-tracking and mailing lists. > > In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that > release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to > release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our > commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on > as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance > with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to > security releases and point releases as well. > > Rationale > > My intent was not just to find a way for us to allow to release Sarge, > it was to create a guideline to help ease us through major changes in > something like the Social contract, or the constitution. The fact that > a generic transition guide may help us also release Sarge soon is a > nice side effect. > > It has been suggested that transitioning ought to be handled in the > original proposal itself, and yes, that is a good idea. But foresight > is weak, compared to 8/20 hind sight, and there may be unforeseen > consequences of a proposed change that were not evident while drafting > the proposal. > > Nothing is perfect. I would much rather we also had a process defined > to pick up the pieces if the before-the-fact transition plan blew up > in our face; this is way better than relying on perfect foresight in > transition plans. > > The other issue addressed in the proposal is one of choosing between > two different requirements of the social contract; and how to balance > these different requirements when some of these requirements are > changed. > > Since this modifies the Constitution, this requires a 3:1 majority to > pass. > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
