Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Wouter Verhelst 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
> > position statement.
> 
> That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are
> our users and free software).  But I don't see it offer an
> interpretation for SC #1 (Debian will remain 100% free).

Not that it matters anymore now (what with the vote being over and all),
but:

"remain" is not the same thing as "become". Etch wasn't 100% free;
neither was sarge, and with woody we had similar problems. I wasn't
around for the potato release, so I can't speak for that one.

The point being, this seems like progress toward a goal that Debian be
100% free software.

It would be possible to interpret the SC as a description of a utopia to
which we want to evolve; one which we've not quite arrived at yet, but
where we very much would like to get.

For clarity: I'm not saying that any of the above represents my personal
opinion. The point is, language isn't math, and as a result the same
text will often mean one thing to one person, and something entirely
else to another. This is why legalese exists; to remove as much
ambiguity as possible from a legal text, those texts are written using
formulations that are well-defined in the context, or that do not have a
lot of ambiguity to start with.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Russ Allbery 
Kurt Roeckx  writes:

> If you have an option saying "Allow Lenny to release with firmware
> blobs.  This does not override the DFSG", I can only see that make sense
> if it really means: "firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation", and the
> "Lenny" part doesn't make sense.

> The same goes for "Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations.
> This does not override the SC."  That would be the same as "Allow
> releases with known DFSG violations".

I agree.  However, I'm very reluctant to say that the Secretary should
prevent the project from voting on proposals that don't make sense,
provided that they're constitutionally clear.

I would vote against both of those proposals as phrased because I think
they're self-contradictory and they're not interpretations that I think we
can make, despite the fact that I was on the side favoring releasing lenny
in the previous GR.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I have no problem with considering the following to be position
> > statements:
> > - Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
> > - Allow releases with known DFSG violations
> > 
> > They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.
> 
> Actually, they are interpreting the DFSG, not the SC.

That is about 2 different issues.

The first is about firmware blobs.  There are probably many
different ways to look at this, and depending on what you say
exactly you can get some firmware blobs to comply with the DFSG.

The second is about releases and DFSG violations.  The
interpretation of the DFSG is not being questioned here.  Just
that we can make a release with DFSG violation or not.  Note that
there are more DFSG violations than just the firmware blobs.

> > But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> > - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> > - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
> > 
> > It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC,
> 
> It does.

Those statements on themself do not.

> > and both seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.
> 
> No, they don't.
> 
> For instance, Proposal B on the latest vote read, in full:
> 
> | Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
> | 
> | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> | issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the last
> | stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the kernel
> | sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues have not
> | yet been addressed;
> | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
> | progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative
> | to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge as of 1
> | November 2008);
> | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every
> | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware
> | as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of Debian Lenny
> | as long as we are legally allowed to do so.
> 
> While it doesn't do so explicitly, the statement implicitly confirms
> that "firmware blobs" violate the DFSG; however, it explicitly states
> that dealing with this, while important, does not weigh up against the
> problems caused for our users by delaying the release.
> 
> This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
> position statement.

That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are
our users and free software).  But I don't see it offer an
interpretation for SC #1 (Debian will remain 100% free).


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> 
> > But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> > - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> > - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
> >
> > It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
> > seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.
> 
> Well, this is the reason why, in my proposal, I require that the GR
> explicitly say one way or the other whether it's overriding a FD if it's
> at all ambiguous.  I don't believe either of those proposals should be
> allowed to go to vote until they explicitly say either that they're
> temporarily overriding a FD or that they believe that the release is
> consistent with the FD as written and are therefore a non-binding position
> statement on how the project interprets the FD.
> 
> Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not very worried about the case of
> a non-binding position statement saying that it doesn't override an FD but
> saying something completely contradictory to it.  First, I don't think
> such a GR would pass, and second, even if it does, it's non-binding, so
> DDs who completely disagree with it aren't bound to follow it.

If you have an option saying "Allow Lenny to release with
firmware blobs.  This does not override the DFSG", I can only
see that make sense if it really means: "firmware blobs are not a
DFSG violation", and the "Lenny" part doesn't make sense.

The same goes for "Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG
violations.  This does not override the SC."  That would be the
same as "Allow releases with known DFSG violations".


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Wouter Verhelst 
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I have no problem with considering the following to be position
> statements:
> - Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
> - Allow releases with known DFSG violations
> 
> They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.

Actually, they are interpreting the DFSG, not the SC.

> But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
> 
> It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC,

It does.

> and both seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.

No, they don't.

For instance, Proposal B on the latest vote read, in full:

| Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
| 
| 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
| 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
| issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the last
| stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the kernel
| sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues have not
| yet been addressed;
| 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
| progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative
| to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge as of 1
| November 2008);
| 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every
| bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware
| as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of Debian Lenny
| as long as we are legally allowed to do so.

While it doesn't do so explicitly, the statement implicitly confirms
that "firmware blobs" violate the DFSG; however, it explicitly states
that dealing with this, while important, does not weigh up against the
problems caused for our users by delaying the release.

This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
position statement.

There's a difference between stating "This is non-free, but we're not
going to worry about that for now so as to allow our users to actually
get a release" and "Yes, this is non-free. Who cares."

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Russ Allbery 
Kurt Roeckx  writes:

> But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
>
> It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
> seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.

Well, this is the reason why, in my proposal, I require that the GR
explicitly say one way or the other whether it's overriding a FD if it's
at all ambiguous.  I don't believe either of those proposals should be
allowed to go to vote until they explicitly say either that they're
temporarily overriding a FD or that they believe that the release is
consistent with the FD as written and are therefore a non-binding position
statement on how the project interprets the FD.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not very worried about the case of
a non-binding position statement saying that it doesn't override an FD but
saying something completely contradictory to it.  First, I don't think
such a GR would pass, and second, even if it does, it's non-binding, so
DDs who completely disagree with it aren't bound to follow it.

nWhat I want to do is get out of the deadlock where the Secretary feels
obligated to make a ruling on whether or not the interpretation is correct
when that may be the whole point of the GR.  Instead, the GR should
explicitly say one way or the other whether it's intended to change the
FD.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

2009-03-16 Thread Kurt Roeckx 
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> >>  6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
> >>that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal before the
> >>vote proceeds.  Such overrides require a 3:1 majority.
> 
> >>A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
> >>Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
> >>Document does not modify the document and therefore does not require a
> >>3:1 majority.  This is true even if the Secretary disagrees with the
> >>interpretation.  However, such intepretations are not binding on the
> >>project.
> 
> > Would that be a "position statement"?  That only seems to have a
> > normal majority requirement.
> >
> > The problem I have with position statements is that they're not
> > binding.  But it atleast gives the secretary a consensus to base
> > decisions on for other votes.
> 
> Yup, exactly, something that fit the last paragraph would be a position
> statement.

I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations

They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.

But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations

It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org