On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > ,----[ The Social contract is a binding contract ] > | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social > | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future; > | _AND_ the social contract should stop us from including anything that > | doesn't comply with the DFSG in main > `----
"main" is just the name of an archive section. The SC says that "Debian" is 100% free, so I think we should go with that instead, regardless of how DAK calls it. > ,----[ The social contract is binding, but currently flawed ] > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal with: > | The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social > | contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future; > | _AND_ it is and was a mistake to have the DFSG cover firmware because > | we have not yet been able to limit Debian to only DFSG-free firmware > | in a suitable way. This mistake should be corrected by amending the > | social contract. > `---- Would probably be a good idea to define firmware here. Besides, isn't there an option in the gr_lenny vote that is basicaly equivalent to this? > ,----[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ] > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > | social contract should apply to /almost/ everything Debian does, now > | and in the future; _AND_ for the few cases where it should not apply > | now, there should be an explicit GR affirming that variation (by simple > | majority) > `---- I don't like the "workaround" approach to supermajority requirements. If we don't want 3:1, why don't we ammend the Constitution instead? > ,----[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ] > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > | social contract is an aspirational document: while we aim to achieve as > | much of it as feasible at all times, we don't expect to get it > | completely right for some time yet. This includes DFSG-freeness of all > | firmware > `---- Doesn't that contradict the definition of "contract" ? Maybe a rename would be in order. > ,----[ The social contract is a non-binding advisory document ] > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > | social contract is a statement of principle only, and has no particular > | force on the day to day operations of Debian, except in so far as it > | influences individual contributors' actions. > `---- How does this differ from the previous one in practice? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
