On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> > The foundation documents are like the law. This GR is like a "decree of >> > the government" that tells us how the law will be applied. >> >> A decree of the government does not do that. It gives supplemental rules and >> regulations compatible with the law (and generally requires a specific >> authorization in the law, but this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). >> >> In any case, GRs are law, not decrees. The proper analogy for a decree would >> be a Project Leader or Delegate decision. > > Analogies do have limits of course but you get the meaning and I stand > behind my logic. In our case the developer body has the right to rule > on anything: change the law (parliament), change a delegate's decision > (override the government), decide of sanctions (justice, we never did it > fortunately) and any analogy with a country will fail due to that.
I actually reject your logic, and I believe that Antti-Juhani interpretation is closer to mine. > However, here we have delegates (the RM) that have taken a decision > and someone believes that the decision was wrong and want to override > it. Instead of voting on that (and then creating a sort of > "jurisprudence") we came up with explanations on how the > firmwares should be handled and for me this is exactly like > a decree that fills the hole (maybe unintentionaly in our case, > intentionaly in real cases probably) that were left in the law. I believe that a decision which contradicts a foundation document can't just be rationalized away; you need to change the foundation document if you do not wish to follow it, or you believe the contradiction is the result of an "unintended" hole. I do not believe that saying Debian shall be 100% free or that programs need source code was a mistake. >> > If the GR doesn't explicitely state that it modifies a foundation >> > document, then it doesn't. If you believe that it does implicitely, then >> > you vote against it (or propose an amendment where you explicitely modify >> > the document). >> >> The Project Secretary is charged with conducting General Resolution >> votes, and with judging disputes in the application of the >> Constitution. As such, the Project Secretary is not really a >> secretarial position - the best analogy is a chairperson of a >> decision-making body. >> As such, I believe it is the Project Secretary's duty (not a right, >> but duty) to ensure that any proposals and amendments are compatible >> with the Constitution, and it is also the Project Secretary's duty to >> refuse to conduct a vote he believes to be contrary to the >> Constitution. > > Like has already been said elsewhere, he applies the constitution and has > to interpret it. I don't believe that it is his role to interpret the > SC/DFSG and decide if a resolution is compatible. We have all agreed > to defend the SC/DFSG but obviously we do have differing ways to interpret > them and so does the secretary, he should not get a special power here. > The developer body decides if a resolution is compatible or not with > our foundation documents when they vote on it. I don't get a special power here. I cannot change dak or britney and decide what goes into the archive or whatr transitions from Sid to Lenny. I have powers only about the composition of the ballot, and a duty to run votes in a manner compatible with the constitution. And, to me, the constitution and the SC are pretty clear, and I am acting in accordance to them. > If the secretary can't be convinced with this discussion, maybe we should > aim at clarifying this in the constitution itself. That would be fine. manoj -- I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 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]