Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given that, I suggest we have a series of proposals and
> amendments, each in a separate email, sponsored and seconded
> independently, that could look something like this below:
>
> ,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
> | The developers, via a g
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 02:52:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> As far as voting for a position statement along the lines of "the social
> contract doesn't matter, we'll upload Microsoft Word into main, yay!",
> I believe that would also require a simple majority (1:1) to pass,
What you're say
Russ Allbery dijo [Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800]:
> Some possible options for that body:
>
> * The DPL (advantage: most directly representative governance figure)
>
> * The Secretary (advantage: not directly representative and hence somewhat
> akin to a Supreme Court judge in the US le
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:23:27AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> If this vote is 1:1 then there's no point in the 3:1 requirement since
> you can just ignore them with a 1:1 vote. When we (using the term
> loosely, since it doesn't include me) voted in the constitution, surely
> the 3:1 requireme
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied t
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The social contract is supposedly a contract.
The Social Contract is not a contract (even though it is called that - but I
believe the name is an intentional reference to a famous concept in political
philosophy). A contr
On Fri Dec 19 20:55, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > ,[ 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 stateme
On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
> > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
> > include SC/Constitution amendments to
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ 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 cont
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
> state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
> dispute over what they mean.
If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at
> On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > ,[ 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
> > > | s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
>> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
>> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
>> d
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "fou
Le Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> [ ] The Social contract is a binding contract
> [ ] The social contract is binding, but currently flawed
> [ ] The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR
> [ ] The social contract is a goal, n
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If we're going to have a vote on this topic, I feel quite strongly that
> every option which states the social contract is binding should include in
> it a constitutional amendment specifying *who* decides for the project
> what those
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I do ont think that determining who interprets the
> non-constitution foundation documents belongs on the same ballot.
That seems entirely reasonable to me, and I agree on the undesireability
of combinatorial explosion of the ballot.
> It is a flaw in the co
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, DPL interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, secretary interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, tech ctte interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, individuals interpret
[ ] The Social contrac
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
>> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
>> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
>> the ft
On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
> > ,[ 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 sh
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
> disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
> with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
> the ftp-masters, and the release team with a clear cut
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
