I second the following amendment. Simon
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:57:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > [This version contains typographical fixes, and a tightening > up of the grammar, of the foundation document. I do not > believe any substantive changes have been made.] > > In order to handle the changes introduced in the GR 2004_003, > 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" > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > <OL style="list-style: decimal;"> > <LI>A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as > critical to the Project's mission and purposes.</LI> > <LI>The Foundation Documents are the works entitled <q>Debian > - Social Contract</q> and <q>Debian Free Software Guidelines</q>.</LI> > + Social Contract</q>, <q>Transition Guide</q> and > + <q>Debian Free Software Guidelines</q>.</LI> > <LI>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 existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation 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.</LI> > </OL> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Content-Description: Transition Guide > Transition Guide > > A working guide to achieve the transition for changes in Foundation > documents with specific remedies for the change in the social contract > made by GR 2004_003 containing explanations and Rationale, and defining > guidelines for future transitions > > In General Resolution 2004_003, the wording of the Social Contract was > modified. The Social Contract represents the core commitments of the > Project. The Social Contract leaves its marks in many ways, it's deeply > intertwined with the all parts of the Project. 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. Since we have recently changed these commitments, we 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, there was the > release of a minor version 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, nor did we > 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 Raul Miller stated: > > > 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. > > > With this document, we, the Debian Project, do so affirm this. We affirm > that 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. > > We affirm that whenever a change to the Social Contract 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), as well as 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. > > > I am actively looking for seconds for this proposal. > > manoj >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
