Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Seconded.
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify, supercede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents
and + statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
+ Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
+ supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I hearby second this proposal. Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manoj Srivastava wrote: - -- Start of PGP signed section. Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). manoj == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of the project the same protection against hasty changes that the constitution itself enjoys. == -- Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. Fred Brooks, Jr. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C - -- End of PGP section. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eJGBKl23+OYWEqURAkJgAKCLr03a1THwqmoF3DEP3nVXfNxSEQCgjpIt yaFwP0WunnW67lERcbe5Nfk= =Ps8B -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Seconded.
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify, supercede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents
and + statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
+ Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
+ supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
pgpHcKNzgwVqL.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Sep 24, Neil Roeth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Manoj, Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification? Why is my mail to this list encountering huge delays? I sent an email on Monday, and when I did not see it appear, I thought I must have done something wrong and sent another, similar message on Wednesday. The original message hit the list on Thursday (3 days later) and the Wednesday message just appeared! Makes me seem silly, asking when Manoj is going to do something he already did. Let's see how long this one takes. -- Neil Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Sep 24, Neil Roeth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Manoj, Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification? Why is my mail to this list encountering huge delays? I sent an email on Monday, and when I did not see it appear, I thought I must have done something wrong and sent another, similar message on Wednesday. The original message hit the list on Thursday (3 days later) and the Wednesday message just appeared! Makes me seem silly, asking when Manoj is going to do something he already did. Let's see how long this one takes. -- Neil Roeth
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj, Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification? - -- Neil Roeth -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/cjo36j+skPrutKkRAtrWAKDIPkucH5KMlMXPHdqZp94KSxh6VQCePdlC BqEDRvR9V5NnATeTkjzCYG4= =Dicg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj, Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting what seems to be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification? - -- Neil Roeth -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/cjo36j+skPrutKkRAtrWAKDIPkucH5KMlMXPHdqZp94KSxh6VQCePdlC BqEDRvR9V5NnATeTkjzCYG4= =Dicg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
I'd be happy to second an amended proposal reflecting what seems to be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification. Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting that?
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
I'd be happy to second an amended proposal reflecting what seems to be the consensus, i.e., allowing supersession, but not modification. Are you going to post another version of the proposal reflecting that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record. I think we should never modify them. It should be possible to put margin notes that explain what we mean, but modifying them should be forbidden. This preserves the historical record and keeps us honest. I would hate to see a Foundation Document modified silently -- it would make for a big scandal. Simon pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:37AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record. I think we should never modify them. It should be possible to put margin notes that explain what we mean, but modifying them should be forbidden. This preserves the historical record and keeps us honest. I would hate to see a Foundation Document modified silently -- it would make for a big scandal. I concur with Simon. If we go to the trouble of issuing a statement under this procedure then we should externalize the visibility of any revisions. -- G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux |If it jams -- force it. If it [EMAIL PROTECTED] |breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it was. I did include the supercession language later on in the document, but forgot it at the top of clause 5. This version also looks fine modulo one spelling nit: forms of supersede are traditionally spelled with Ss, not Cs. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). ... + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. Spelling: supersession (and supersede) - the derivation is not the same as that of concession and concede. My mistake. I do write supersede, but for some reason supercession instinctively trumped supersession. -- G. Branden Robinson|Computer security is like an onion: Debian GNU/Linux |the more you dig in, the more you [EMAIL PROTECTED] |want to cry. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Cory Altheide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). manoj == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of the project the same protection against hasty changes that the constitution itself enjoys. == -- Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. Fred Brooks, Jr. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpikVYAAjD4p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Seconded. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). manoj == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of the project the same protection against hasty changes that the constitution itself enjoys. == -- Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. Fred Brooks, Jr. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpWoIm39583i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi, On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:52:13 -0400, Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). [snip] - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. + 5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and Manoj, I wonder why you did not incorporate the wording on supercessionof documents. Although I will second your revised proposal no matter your answer, I am concerned that perhaps it was an oversight. Yes, it was. I did include the supercession language later on in the document, but forgot it at the top of clause 5. Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record. manoj == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, modify, supercede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of the project the same protection against hasty changes that the constitution itself enjoys. == -- I will never lie to you. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:37AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record. I think we should never modify them. It should be possible to put margin notes that explain what we mean, but modifying them should be forbidden. This preserves the historical record and keeps us honest. I would hate to see a Foundation Document modified silently -- it would make for a big scandal. I concur with Simon. If we go to the trouble of issuing a statement under this procedure then we should externalize the visibility of any revisions. -- G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux |If it jams -- force it. If it [EMAIL PROTECTED] |breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). ... + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. Spelling: supersession (and supersede) - the derivation is not the same as that of concession and concede. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; That thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. Matthew 6:2-4
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). ... + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. Spelling: supersession (and supersede) - the derivation is not the same as that of concession and concede. My mistake. I do write supersede, but for some reason supercession instinctively trumped supersession. -- G. Branden Robinson|Computer security is like an onion: Debian GNU/Linux |the more you dig in, the more you [EMAIL PROTECTED] |want to cry. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Cory Altheide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). manoj == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of the project the same protection against hasty changes that the constitution itself enjoys. == -- Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. Fred Brooks, Jr. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Manoj, I would like to add my approval to these editorial comments. The idea of superseding previous documents sits far better with me than the idea of modification. The preservation of a historical record of our decisions is one of the ways we make our intentions clear to the world. Please consider its changes. Simon On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:46:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I have some editorial amendments to propose. Unlike amendment BR1, these do *not* run counter to the proposer's intentions as I understand them. 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. In my opinion, either this clause should go, or the identification of the Debian Constitution as a Foundation Document should go. It is redundant and potentially confusing to express the critera for amending the Constitution in two different clauses. I think it would be better have three subclauses of clause 5, describing: 1. what a Foundation Document is 2. a list of Foundation Documents 3. what the requirements are for issue, withdrawing, or superseding a Foundation Document +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. I suggest: + 5. Issue, withdraw, and supersede nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as + Foundation Documents. These documents are those + that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project, + they tend to define what the project is, and lay the + foundations of its structure. The developers may + modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1 + majority. In my opinion, the above definition of Foundation Document is too rambling. +5.1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the + documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents + that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. I do not understand why we need to describe an ephemeral fact about what the Foundation Documents once were (Initially). Also, with the list of Foundation Documents encapsulated into the text of the constitution, it is redundant to explain that a consitutional amendment is necessary to amend the text of the constitution, and to reiterate the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment. +5.2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. (I have omitted the constitution itself as 4.1.2 already handles its amendment requirements.) +5.3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. I should think that new Foundation Documents can be issued, and existing ones withdrawn, by amending the text of 4.1.5.2 per 4.1.2. If you want to make that explicit, please add: - supercession. + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. Thanks for your consideration. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Manoj, I would like to add my approval to these editorial comments. The idea of superseding previous documents sits far better with me than the idea of modification. The preservation of a historical record of our decisions is one of the ways we make our intentions clear to the world. Please consider its changes. Simon On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:46:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I have some editorial amendments to propose. Unlike amendment BR1, these do *not* run counter to the proposer's intentions as I understand them. 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. In my opinion, either this clause should go, or the identification of the Debian Constitution as a Foundation Document should go. It is redundant and potentially confusing to express the critera for amending the Constitution in two different clauses. I think it would be better have three subclauses of clause 5, describing: 1. what a Foundation Document is 2. a list of Foundation Documents 3. what the requirements are for issue, withdrawing, or superseding a Foundation Document +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. I suggest: + 5. Issue, withdraw, and supersede nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as + Foundation Documents. These documents are those + that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project, + they tend to define what the project is, and lay the + foundations of its structure. The developers may + modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1 + majority. In my opinion, the above definition of Foundation Document is too rambling. +5.1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the + documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents + that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. I do not understand why we need to describe an ephemeral fact about what the Foundation Documents once were (Initially). Also, with the list of Foundation Documents encapsulated into the text of the constitution, it is redundant to explain that a consitutional amendment is necessary to amend the text of the constitution, and to reiterate the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment. +5.2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian + Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines. (I have omitted the constitution itself as 4.1.2 already handles its amendment requirements.) +5.3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its + supercession. I should think that new Foundation Documents can be issued, and existing ones withdrawn, by amending the text of 4.1.5.2 per 4.1.2. If you want to make that explicit, please add: - supercession. + supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and + existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation + Documents in this constitution. Thanks for your consideration. pgpcE1OxfbNdC.pgp Description: PGP signature
