On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: > > > It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide > > > not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to > > > its application, without reaching the quorum that would be necessary to > > > excluding that text entirely and forever.
> > Enforcement of the foundation documents is not defined in the constitution, > > so no, this is not a question of constitutional law. > Avoiding getting too technical about it, it is still illogical. You > cannot produce the same effects of an amendment, even though > temporarily, bypassing the requirements to an amendment. Creating an > exception by means of General Resolution is equivalent to adding a > little line to the document stating that "this does not apply to the > Lenny release", except for the fact that we leave it in another official > document for convenience reasons. If the effect in question here is the release of lenny with sourceless firmware included in main, you certainly can get that effect without an amendment - precisely because under the constitution and in the absence of a GR to the contrary, interpretation and enforcement of the foundation documents devolves to the individual developers whose work it touches. No other body for enforcement of the DFSG is defined in the constitution. It's up to individual developers to determine for themselves whether their actions are in keeping with the DFSG/SC, and with the promise they made when they became DDs to uphold those principles in their Debian work. No one else, with the exception of the project as a whole by way of GR[1], has the power to decree that a developer's understanding of the DFSG is wrong. Well, I mean, obviously we can all shout at each other on the mailing lists until the person we think is wrong gives up and quits, too, but that's not exactly a constitutional power. This is why having an "interventionist" secretary that decides a priori that certain interpretations are incompatible with the DFSG is so problematic and the cause of so much outrage on the mailing lists - because regardless of whether it's done with malice (which I don't believe it is), the effect is that the secretary assumes the power to interpret the foundation documents and his personal interpretation of the DFSG suddenly become paramount. You (appear to) happen to agree with Manoj's understanding of the implications of the DFSG for the lenny release. That's fine; I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong to think that. But that doesn't make it ok for you, or the secretary, to impose this interpretation on the project except *by way of* the GR process. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org [1] ... or the DAM by summarily expelling them from the project, I guess... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
