Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] [0], [1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition via dictionary.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority. manoj often thankful he is not a native speaker of the English language -- Look ere ye leap. John Heywood 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it. Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority. No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix hints at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being majorities which are not supermajorities). I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1 super majorities. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms
be used interchangeably?
Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid
it.
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a
majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more
than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no
longer
Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than
half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit
over half so we can just barely call it a majority.
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
Then your understanding is incorrect.
2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of
mankind; a majority of the votes cast.
[1913 Webster]
Could be 99.99% of the votes cast, would still be a majority.
4. The amount or number by which one aggregate exceeds all
other aggregates with which it is contrasted; especially,
the number by which the votes for a successful candidate
exceed those for all other candidates; as, he is elected
by a majority of five hundred votes. See {Plurality}.
[1913 Webster]
majority
n 1: the property resulting from being or relating to the greater
in number of two parts; the main part; the majority of
his customers prefer it; the bulk of the work is
finished [syn: {bulk}] [ant: {minority}]
2: (elections) more than half of the votes [syn: {absolute
majority}]
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
MAJORITY, government. The greater number of the voters; though in another
sense, it means the greater number of votes given in which sense it is a
mere plurality. (q.v.)
require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified
majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a
motion or pass legislation.[1]
So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a
supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than
half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority.
No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix
hints at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being
supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being
majorities which are not supermajorities).
Your interpretation is not supported by the dictionaries out
there. Indeed, the sentence you have quoted shows that a super
majority is merely a majority with a specified number of votes, as I
noted.
I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
super majorities.
You probably need to file another GR to change all such
references in the constitutions, since there are several references
to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
be clarified too).
manoj
--
I BET WHAT HAPPENED was they discovered fire and invented the wheel on
the same day. Then that night, they burned the wheel. Jack Handley,
The New Mexican, 1988.
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
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they serve distinct functions. Nevertheless, the document entitled Debian Social Contract includes both parts, plus an introductory paragraph. The part titled Social Contract with the Free Software Community is the one commonly referred to as the Social Contract on its own, though it depends on context. You can verify this at http://www.debian.org/social_contract. I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try. I reported it as a bug and you chose to ignore it. You are of course free to twist that into somehow being my fault for failing to report it more vigorously. The opinion you stated was: Well, then, shouldn't this amendment be accepted? We can ensure that this interpretation gets read into the record, as it were. It is Manoj's proposal that treats the two documents disjunctively. If that's incorrect, it should be fixed. (where this interpretation refers to mine, which you quoted directly above.) I thought this meant you agreed with me, and would issue a new proposal to give the alternative you intended. Now I see that you intended to keep the wording but add an interpretation that contradicts it. Since my problem is with the rationale, not with the wording, what amendment could I have proposed? I prefer the wording of C to that of A because it's more accurate. Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options are free to rank further discussion as their first choice. No, I'll vote B A F C. Proposal A's list is redundant but unambiguous. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it. Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. Then your understanding is incorrect. Sure, sure whatever. ... skipped lot of good english definitions ... I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1 super majorities. You probably need to file another GR to change all such references in the constitutions, since there are several references to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need be clarified too). Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just use one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of the constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere, instead of introducing the super-majority term. I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word only, and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid doubt and confusion. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it. Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. Then your understanding is incorrect. Sure, sure whatever. ... skipped lot of good english definitions ... I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1 super majorities. You probably need to file another GR to change all such references in the constitutions, since there are several references to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need be clarified too). Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just use one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of the constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere, instead of introducing the super-majority term. Words are not divorced of their meanings, and using two terms, both of which are applicable, ought to be acceptable. I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word only, and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid doubt and confusion. I am afraid that if you want to outlaw synonyms, you certainly may, but it goes far beyond the scope of the current set of proposals, and I certainly am not authorized to go about amending random bits of the constitution simply because synonyms may cause confusion. My suggestion would be, in case of confusion, to look it up in a dictionary; there are some fairly good ones online now. http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/S0899900.html, for example. manoj -- Till then we shall be content to admit openly, what you (religionists) whisper under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the ancient secret is a secret still; that man knows nothing of the Infinite and Absolute; and that, knowing nothing, he had better not be dogmatic about his ignorance. And, meanwhile, we will endeavour to be as charitable as possible, and whilst you trumpet forth officially your contempt for our skepticism, we will at least try to believe that you are imposed upon by your own bluster. Leslie Stephen, An agnostic's Apology, Fortnightly Review, 1876 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] [0], [1] The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition via dictionary.com But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to fix this? Peace, Dylan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote: But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to fix this? as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort, though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi folks, Here is the current incarnation. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 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, supersede 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 super-majority for its + supersession. 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
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority. manoj often thankful he is not a native speaker of the English language -- Look ere ye leap. John Heywood 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: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it. Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority. No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix hints at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being majorities which are not supermajorities). I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1 super majorities. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms
be used interchangeably?
Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid
it.
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a
majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more
than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no
longer
Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than
half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit
over half so we can just barely call it a majority.
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
Then your understanding is incorrect.
2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of
mankind; a majority of the votes cast.
[1913 Webster]
Could be 99.99% of the votes cast, would still be a majority.
4. The amount or number by which one aggregate exceeds all
other aggregates with which it is contrasted; especially,
the number by which the votes for a successful candidate
exceed those for all other candidates; as, he is elected
by a majority of five hundred votes. See {Plurality}.
[1913 Webster]
majority
n 1: the property resulting from being or relating to the greater
in number of two parts; the main part; the majority of
his customers prefer it; the bulk of the work is
finished [syn: {bulk}] [ant: {minority}]
2: (elections) more than half of the votes [syn: {absolute
majority}]
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
MAJORITY, government. The greater number of the voters; though in another
sense, it means the greater number of votes given in which sense it is a
mere plurality. (q.v.)
require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified
majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a
motion or pass legislation.[1]
So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a
supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than
half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority.
No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix
hints at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being
supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being
majorities which are not supermajorities).
Your interpretation is not supported by the dictionaries out
there. Indeed, the sentence you have quoted shows that a super
majority is merely a majority with a specified number of votes, as I
noted.
I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
super majorities.
You probably need to file another GR to change all such
references in the constitutions, since there are several references
to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
be clarified too).
manoj
--
I BET WHAT HAPPENED was they discovered fire and invented the wheel on
the same day. Then that night, they burned the wheel. Jack Handley,
The New Mexican, 1988.
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: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they serve distinct functions. Nevertheless, the document entitled Debian Social Contract includes both parts, plus an introductory paragraph. The part titled Social Contract with the Free Software Community is the one commonly referred to as the Social Contract on its own, though it depends on context. You can verify this at http://www.debian.org/social_contract. I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try. I reported it as a bug and you chose to ignore it. You are of course free to twist that into somehow being my fault for failing to report it more vigorously. The opinion you stated was: Well, then, shouldn't this amendment be accepted? We can ensure that this interpretation gets read into the record, as it were. It is Manoj's proposal that treats the two documents disjunctively. If that's incorrect, it should be fixed. (where this interpretation refers to mine, which you quoted directly above.) I thought this meant you agreed with me, and would issue a new proposal to give the alternative you intended. Now I see that you intended to keep the wording but add an interpretation that contradicts it. Since my problem is with the rationale, not with the wording, what amendment could I have proposed? I prefer the wording of C to that of A because it's more accurate. Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options are free to rank further discussion as their first choice. No, I'll vote B A F C. Proposal A's list is redundant but unambiguous. Richard Braakman
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it. Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. Then your understanding is incorrect. Sure, sure whatever. ... skipped lot of good english definitions ... I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1 super majorities. You probably need to file another GR to change all such references in the constitutions, since there are several references to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need be clarified too). Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just use one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of the constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere, instead of introducing the super-majority term. I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word only, and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid doubt and confusion. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it. Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority. As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. Then your understanding is incorrect. Sure, sure whatever. ... skipped lot of good english definitions ... I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1 super majorities. You probably need to file another GR to change all such references in the constitutions, since there are several references to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need be clarified too). Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just use one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of the constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere, instead of introducing the super-majority term. Words are not divorced of their meanings, and using two terms, both of which are applicable, ought to be acceptable. I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word only, and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid doubt and confusion. I am afraid that if you want to outlaw synonyms, you certainly may, but it goes far beyond the scope of the current set of proposals, and I certainly am not authorized to go about amending random bits of the constitution simply because synonyms may cause confusion. My suggestion would be, in case of confusion, to look it up in a dictionary; there are some fairly good ones online now. http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/S0899900.html, for example. manoj -- Till then we shall be content to admit openly, what you (religionists) whisper under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the ancient secret is a secret still; that man knows nothing of the Infinite and Absolute; and that, knowing nothing, he had better not be dogmatic about his ignorance. And, meanwhile, we will endeavour to be as charitable as possible, and whilst you trumpet forth officially your contempt for our skepticism, we will at least try to believe that you are imposed upon by your own bluster. Leslie Stephen, An agnostic's Apology, Fortnightly Review, 1876 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: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote: As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. Then your understanding is incorrect. 2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of mankind; a majority of the votes cast. [1913 Webster] So, then, 51% would be enough, but proposals A and C require 3:1. That's more than a majority; hence, supermajority. More important than arguing over definitions is, I think, consistency. Let's just pick one of the words for the GR. Using both words makes the reader wonder if there is a sane reason to do so, and he starts trying to figure out how a 3:1 majority is different from a 3:1 supermajority. It seems to be fairly normal and expected to used the same word consistently in technical and legal documents (unlike novels, for example). I suggest we do so.
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a distinction. Also, a 3:1 majority is a contradiction; a majority is defined as The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer require a majority, we require a supermajority, a specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.[1] [0], [1] The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition via dictionary.com But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to fix this? Peace, Dylan
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote: As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a majority. Then your understanding is incorrect. 2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of mankind; a majority of the votes cast. [1913 Webster] So, then, 51% would be enough, but proposals A and C require 3:1. That's more than a majority; hence, supermajority. Does no one look at definitions any more? A 51% supermajority, or a 99% supermajority, are both majorities, and equally valid. A supermajority is merely a majority where you explicitly state how much the major part has to be compared to the whole (like, 50.0001% super majority) More important than arguing over definitions is, I think, consistency. Let's just pick one of the words for the GR. Using both words makes the reader wonder if there is a sane reason to do so, and he starts trying to figure out how a 3:1 majority is different from a 3:1 supermajority. It seems to be fairly normal and expected to used the same word consistently in technical and legal documents (unlike novels, for example). I suggest we do so. Well, kinda late in the game, no? The discussion period started 2 weeks ago, and this was immediately preceded by *MONTHS* where contributions and critiques were invited. manoj thinking about consistency and hobgoblins -- When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the money is. Robespierre 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
Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi guys, Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 5. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 5). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: No action [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 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, supersede 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 super-majority for its + supersession. 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
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social contract, and can't be treated differently. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. manoj waiting for the fiend -- The trouble with the average family budget is that at the end of the money there's too much month left. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical document that should not need a supermajority to change. Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like this? Peace, Dylan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. Yep, and this is, i think, something that needs clarification before the vote starts, maybe even to go in the rationale before the ballot is officialized. The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social contract, and can't be treated differently. A 'part', i suppose you wanted to say. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. Ok, that is no problem, the real question is about variant C. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. Ok Branden, what is your opinion on this ? Could you clarify the wording on this, altough if i remember well, you made your position already clear previously on this list, but a clarification in the rationale going on the ballot would be a good thing. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they serve distinct functions. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. I share your interpretation. It might be wise to add some information to the rationale statements on proposals A and C: If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines as distinct works. (I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it. We've had a completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project Secretary before [not you], and we survived.) I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try. Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options are free to rank further discussion as their first choice. In any event, if any of proposals A, B, or C passes, we can amend the second sentence of clause one of the Debian Social Contract to externalize the reference to our Free Software guidelines. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: == It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. == Editorial note: If you're not the me that is speaking here then you should clarify that or rephrase. IIRC you're quoting Branden. Please replace my rationale statement for proposal C with the following: == There may be some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but who do not wish to extend this opportunity to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. == Also see my earlier remarks about adding a declaration regarding the separateness of the SC and DFSG to the rationale statements for proposals A and C. -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical document that should not need a supermajority to change. The web page for the vote has been up on www.d.o for 13 days. We are 13 days into a 2 week discussion period. Shouldn't this have been brought up before now? Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like this? I did ask proposers (well, proposer) for a better rationale. And it is meant to be a rationale -- not a full blown argument for the proposal. This mailing list is the proper forum for presenting arguments for and against the proposals, and indeed, the archives list voluminous debates on these issues in days past. I am not sure the resulting constitution should be burdened with an extended set of arguments for an amendment that has passed and is now a part of the constitution -- and that is the intent of the rationale; to provide a short footnote in the constitution; not a means for voters to make their decision. manoj -- Once is happenstance, Twice is coincidence, Three times is enemy action. Auric Goldfinger 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi, Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on sentences, removed a me from the rationale, added clarifications in the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be considered distinct works. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 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, supersede 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 super-majority for its + supersession. 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
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they serve distinct functions. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. I share your interpretation. It might be wise to add some information to the rationale statements on proposals A and C: If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines as distinct works. (I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it. We've had a completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project Secretary before [not you], and we survived.) I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try. Ok. Notice that this interpretation is fine with me too, i just wanted to make this clear before the voting start, in order for there not being confusion during the voting period, and since the subject has been raised in past discussion, as you said. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Yet another update for the ballot. conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard s/delinated/delineated/ Other than that, looks good. Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi, On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:43:04 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava wrote: Yet another update for the ballot. conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard s/delinated/delineated/ Fixed now. manoj -- And so it was, later, As the miller told his tale, That her face, at first just ghostly, Turned a whiter shade of pale. Procol Harum 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [...] these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they [...] Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and Which is it? Or is it supermajority? And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? manoj -- About the only thing we have left that actually discriminates in favor of the plain people is the stork. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi folks, Here is the current incarnation. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 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, supersede 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 super-majority for its + supersession. 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
Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi guys, Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is another _draft_ which incorporates the suggested improvements. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 5. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 5). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: No action [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 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, supersede 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 super-majority for its + supersession. 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
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: == 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, supersede 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 Document is the work entitled Debian + Social Contract. + 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its + supersession. 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.) == It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. == Editorial note: If you're not the me that is speaking here then you should clarify that or rephrase. IIRC you're quoting Branden. I also think the rationale is at odds with the proposal, because the work entitled Debian Social Contract includes the DFSG. (Its title seems to vary a bit; doc-debian calls it Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract. Was that the original title?) This inclusion isn't accidental; point 1 specifically says As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is free below. Richard Braakman
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical document that should not need a supermajority to change. Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like this? Peace, Dylan
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. Yep, and this is, i think, something that needs clarification before the vote starts, maybe even to go in the rationale before the ballot is officialized. The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social contract, and can't be treated differently. A 'part', i suppose you wanted to say. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. Ok, that is no problem, the real question is about variant C. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. Ok Branden, what is your opinion on this ? Could you clarify the wording on this, altough if i remember well, you made your position already clear previously on this list, but a clarification in the rationale going on the ballot would be a good thing. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they serve distinct functions. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. I share your interpretation. It might be wise to add some information to the rationale statements on proposals A and C: If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines as distinct works. (I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it. We've had a completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project Secretary before [not you], and we survived.) I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try. Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options are free to rank further discussion as their first choice. In any event, if any of proposals A, B, or C passes, we can amend the second sentence of clause one of the Debian Social Contract to externalize the reference to our Free Software guidelines. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:27:16PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: == It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. == Editorial note: If you're not the me that is speaking here then you should clarify that or rephrase. IIRC you're quoting Branden. Please replace my rationale statement for proposal C with the following: == There may be some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but who do not wish to extend this opportunity to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. == Also see my earlier remarks about adding a declaration regarding the separateness of the SC and DFSG to the rationale statements for proposals A and C. -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 + (UTC), Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: __ Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical document that should not need a supermajority to change. The web page for the vote has been up on www.d.o for 13 days. We are 13 days into a 2 week discussion period. Shouldn't this have been brought up before now? Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like this? I did ask proposers (well, proposer) for a better rationale. And it is meant to be a rationale -- not a full blown argument for the proposal. This mailing list is the proper forum for presenting arguments for and against the proposals, and indeed, the archives list voluminous debates on these issues in days past. I am not sure the resulting constitution should be burdened with an extended set of arguments for an amendment that has passed and is now a part of the constitution -- and that is the intent of the rationale; to provide a short footnote in the constitution; not a means for voters to make their decision. manoj -- Once is happenstance, Twice is coincidence, Three times is enemy action. Auric Goldfinger 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: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Hi, Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on sentences, removed a me from the rationale, added clarifications in the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be considered distinct works. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 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, supersede 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 super-majority for its + supersession. 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
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:09:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian itself. I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they serve distinct functions. The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them specifically. You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot. I share your interpretation. It might be wise to add some information to the rationale statements on proposals A and C: If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines as distinct works. (I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it. We've had a completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project Secretary before [not you], and we survived.) I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try. Ok. Notice that this interpretation is fine with me too, i just wanted to make this clear before the voting start, in order for there not being confusion during the voting period, and since the subject has been raised in past discussion, as you said. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Yet another update for the ballot. conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard s/delinated/delineated/ Other than that, looks good. Joe
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4]. [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [...] these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they [...] Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and Which is it? Or is it supermajority? -- 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.
Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400, Aaron M Ucko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [...] these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they [...] Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and Which is it? Or is it supermajority? And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used interchangeably? manoj -- About the only thing we have left that actually discriminates in favor of the plain people is the stork. 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
