Mr. Secretary, I have a series of questions concerning recent proposals for the Debian Project. I am a long-time user of Debian, but not a developer. While I understand and accept that I have no official standing in Debian's decision making system and have no vote, I feel that my long-term use and commitment to Debian gives me a legitimate interest in the status and outcome of these proposals.
1. John Goetzen recently made a proposed General Resolution, to which Anthony Townes suggested an amendment. Both the original proposal and the amendment have had various developers post seconds to them. The web site http://www.debian.org/vote does not list the proposal or amendment yet. What is the current parliamentary status of the proposal by John Goetzen and the amendment by Anthony Townes? 2. The proposal by John Goetzen calls for a modification of the Debian Social Contract. Some have suggested that such a modification is allowed by Clause 4.1.5 of the Debian Constitution ("Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements"), while others claim that that particular clause does not apply to amending the Social Contract -- and that there is no Constitutionally valid method of amending the Social Contract. It has also been suggested that amending the DSC is equivilant to amending the Debian Constitution, and thus falls under 4.1.2, and requires a 3:1 supermajority. As far as I have seen, most are agreed that the Project Secretary's opinion should decide. What Constitutional authority, if any, is there for amending the Social Contract? What level of majority or supermajority is needed to enact an amendment to the Debian Social Contract? 3. If the original proposal requires a supermajority and the amendment (which does not amend the DSC) requires only a majority, how will the vote counting and determination of the results of the ballots be done? I hope to receive a reply to these questions soon. Thank you, Buddha Buck -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
