Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not. No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he must make a determination as best as he can. From your previous mail: If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of the DFSG to that extent. Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there isn't, then the if in the first part of your sentence is never satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical. In actual fact, I'm sure there *are* cases where the situation is so blindingly obvious that we all agree completely unanimously that it is obvious that a license is not DFSG-compliant. But in those cases, it's hard to imagine why there might be a resolution declaring that it were DFSG-compliant. So your example is still completely hypothetical and irrelevant. Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. No. This is incorrect. The developers surely have the right to declare what the DFSG means; I have never challenged that. So what is incorrect? However, this does not specify by what majority they must act. The developers have the right to rescind the DFSG or close down the Project if they want, but this does not mean that a mere majority is sufficient to take those steps. Unless the developers wish to supercede the DFSG or the SC then a simple majority is required. Nothing in any of the resolutions to be passed claims to supercede the DFSG or SC in any way, ergo they don't. If one of the amended resolutions were to pass, by a simple majority, without claiming to supercede either the DFSG or the SC, then nothing within it could be taken as doing so. As with any other resolution, if a situation later arose in which the requirements of the resolution were seen to conflict with the requirements of the DFSG or SC, then the DFSG/SC would take precedence. This should be based on a matter of fact though, not of opinion. As should the majority required in this ballot. To be quite clear about this, I will personally almost certainly vote for AJ's unamended resolution. The first amended version, as I pointed out before, contains at least one error which renders it useless. Were it to pass in its current state, it would require another GR to correct/clarify its meaning. I believe that anyone who favours the intended meaning of this amendment should either make damn sure that it is corrected before the vote, or vote for further discussion to allow a corrected version to be put forward. I might be tempted to vote for this amended version were it not for that problem. However, the presence of this problem indicates to me that the amendment as a whole is unlikely to be as well thought out as such a resolution demands. The second amended version, to me, is stretching the bounds of credulity somewhat. It also appears to endorse Stallman's quote: The whole point of those works is that they tell you what somebody thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes. To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these works is not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do. Which is, to me, obviously and blatantly factually incorrect in several different ways. So, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of the wrongness of Manoj's claim for a supermajority requirement because I think it will help me get my way -- I just happen to feel very strongly that it is an abuse (although I don't doubt a well-intentioned one) of the position which he holds. Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as beer!!!) Yeah, um, if you had closed the bug, I would have reopened it immediately. Unless you persuade the release managers that the GFDL complies with the DFSG, amend the DFSG so that it *does* comply, or invoke the technical committee, this is a release-critical issue for etch as listed on http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt; playing BTS tennis isn't going to make that go away. I'm sorry, but whether something is a release-critical bug is just not your decision to make personally. I did not do it anyway, because I don't think it would be a responsible attitude. It would be breaking the rules and I'm all against breaking the law. Either you respect rules or you leave. The only way to fix this is to change the rules. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't include supervisory elements. However, Debian is different, giving to the Secretary a variety of supervisory tasks, That's not true; the secretary's position in Debian is primarily administrative -- namely to take votes amongst the Developers and determine the number and identity of Developers. The two additional duties are exceptional: to stand in for the DPL when he's absent (with the tech ctte chair), and to adjudicate disputes about the constitution. Neither is supervisory in any case -- the difference being that supervision is an ongoing task, unlike both standing in while a new DPL is chosen, or adjudicating a dispute that's arisen. And being responsible for the final form of the ballot. I also think that that includes deciding which peoposals fit on one ballot, and which require a separate vote. That doesn't mean taking on a supervisory role is bad or improper, though, just that it's not an unavoidable consequence of being Debian secretary. It is an unavoidable part of being an ethical secretary, according to my reading of the position. manoj -- Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri told this: On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely it does. People who say I was deceived; and I didn't bother to take elementary steps to avoid deception have chosen to be deceived. Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful. Were you deceived by the 2003 amendment? No, because the second time I received the ballot I had time to waste and spent it reading the proposed changes. But just by reading the subject I would have believed too that these were trivial changes, just like in the precedent GR. Why did you not say something at that point to the effect that this was not an editorial change? manoj -- Biggest security gap -- an open mouth. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated: Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it? I find it strange you couch this in terms of honour and supervision. I do not understand how this can be; and I certainly do not hold this view, since I do not even understand it. I view this a ballot correctness issue. The ballot should be one that does not lead to contradictory situations,or else, in my opinion, the ballot is buggy. That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. If you think that ensuring the end product is correct is a supervisory rol, then I must change the org chart to put the QA group in my company higher up than they are. Yes, it is a gating mechanism. The secretary is the final arbiter. If you think that is a supervisory role, I guess I think I consider it differently. Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. Change the constitution to propose the secretary be replaced by a bot. Me, I have automated a lot of voting procedure using devotee, and work on it when I have time. manoj -- I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 05:47, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised: It might be better at setting people's expectations: where they might expect the secretary to be unbiassed, or at least to pretend to be, presumably they wouldn't expect that of people proposing GRs. So people would prefer a rubber stamp mindlessly going along with whatever is put before them? Umm, then change the constitution, and take away this power of the secretary to adjudicate ballots and matter of procedure. I am sure one can write up a front end to set up and start off devotee, based on mailed signatures. If that happens, of course, it would end my tenure as secretary, since I could not, in good conscience, go along being just a rubber stamp. A GR to replace the secretary with a computer program is permissible but perhaps unlikely to pass. Unless and until such a program passes the secretary should exercise his or her judgment as he or she sees fit. A hypothetical future bad secretary can always be replaced. Unlike some parts of the real world, the same cabal doesn't control Debian's election machinary and the relevant media and the supreme court and the military. A hypothetical future bad secretary could probably be removed by pressure of public opinion without having to resort to legal action or warfare. Thank you for all that you do Manoj Srivastava. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there isn't, then the if in the first part of your sentence is never satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical. Wrong. Stating a hypothetical does not imply that I have some absolute way to determine whether the antecedent is satisfied. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says if the resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least two other possible sources of that silliness. If you take these interpretive GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as an interpretion, and you can phrase anything at all as an interpretion. I actually don't think that's the case. But let's assume that it is. The fact that you can get around the 3:1 requirement by wording your GR appropriately merely shows the 3:1 requirement (or its wording) to have been inadequately thought through -- it certainly doesn't magically extend it (a particularly bad idea if it seems like it might not have been adequately thought through in the first place). Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:53:33 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: (It would also mean that any interpretation is done when the code's being written; so the decisions are predicatable in advance, and if any of them appear to be wrong, they can be debated in advance, rather than being a distraction from a substantive debate that's trying to happen at the same time) On the other hand, bugs are not always found until tested in real-world conditions... (I do agree that automation is useful. But I think that manual adjustments may sometimes be necessary.) -- Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least two other possible sources of that silliness. I think this circling argument is silly, not the constitution. If you take these interpretive GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as an interpretion, and you can phrase anything at all as an interpretion. I actually don't think that's the case. But let's assume that it is. The fact that you can get around the 3:1 requirement by wording your GR appropriately merely shows the 3:1 requirement (or its wording) to have been inadequately thought through -- it certainly doesn't magically extend it (a particularly bad idea if it seems like it might not have been adequately thought through in the first place). This it's only an interpretation! not 3:1! is merely word-game rules- lawyering to try to create a loophole in the constitution. Those loopholes can always be created, if everyone is allowed their own interpretation of the rules; that's not an indication of lack of forethought. Fortunately, as is typically the case, everyone is not allowed their own interpretation of the rules. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial general resolution proposals as if they'd already won the vote before the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to. So by this reasoning, is the original GR proposal not controversial, whereas the other two amendments are? What's the key difference, if it isn't that the Project Secretary thinks one is correct and the others are not? Rather, the controversial elements of that option does not conflict with our historical interpretations of the DFSG. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents -- ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now in a sense, by continuing to leave bugs like #199810 unfixed. So stick it in non-free for unstable, until the issue gets resolved. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says if the resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1. The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because it has already passed. The real problem here is that the option in question uses poor grammar. For that reason alone, I think this option would be bad for the project. It's already spawning arguments because people think they agree with the option, but it's not clear what agreement with the option means. Fortunately, or unfortunately, our resolution mechanism for this kind of problem involves voting. Personally: I am reasonably confident that most of the developers will vote against something like this: where the grammar of the proposal is so poor that it spawns grammar based arguments about what it would mean if it were accepted -- before it's even voted on. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. I don't know what this means. In general, humans are capable of understanding what is meant by a ballot option, while machines are not. I don't think incomprehensible ballot options are very useful, and we're already pushing that envelope. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi, Raul Miller schrieb: This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says if the resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1. The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because it has already passed. By what rule? The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails supermajority. It could then be argued that since it has majority, it constitutes proof that there should never have been a supermajority requirement and thus the simple majority suffices, or it could be argued that it failed supermajority, hence modifies a foundation document, hence requires supermajority. And it *will* be argued, no doubt. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails supermajority. Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses some judgement about past events. For example, imagine a GR that says we have never received any spam. If that passes, what would it mean? Would it mean that the things we received which we thought were span are not in fact spam? Would it mean that the people who received spam are not part of the we in question? Would it mean that the spam was inflicted on us, rather than received by us? Fundamentally, a GR is a proposal which we accept. It can only change the future. We can't change the past, and we should not pretend that we will try. We should not be trying to hide past mistakes, even when we really think that they are mistakes. It could then be argued that since it has majority, it constitutes proof that there should never have been a supermajority requirement and thus the simple majority suffices, or it could be argued that it failed supermajority, hence modifies a foundation document, hence requires supermajority. And it *will* be argued, no doubt. Please notice that you used the phrase should never have been. If we avoid trying to claim that we can change the past, I think the first part of the above becomes: It could be argued that if an option receives a majority of the votes preferring it to all option then a supermajority requirement for that option was a mistake. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of this issue that are capable of acting like children. Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come through my mailbox the first time. I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as beer!!!) Ain't life grand?!! -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of this issue that are capable of acting like children. Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come through my mailbox the first time. I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as beer!!!) Yeah, um, if you had closed the bug, I would have reopened it immediately. Unless you persuade the release managers that the GFDL complies with the DFSG, amend the DFSG so that it *does* comply, or invoke the technical committee, this is a release-critical issue for etch as listed on http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt; playing BTS tennis isn't going to make that go away. I'm sorry, but whether something is a release-critical bug is just not your decision to make personally. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's protection, believe it or not. Really? Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea? Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25% against majorities as high as 74%. If 51% of developers vote for something that silly, there is not much we can do to save the project, frankly. Your attitude that we need hand holding and protection from ourselves is rather insulting. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers? There was a rather heated debate at the time, I recall. What did they say in response to questions like did you read the changes? As someone who carefully read and then voted for the changes, I was rather taken aback by the (unforeseen, by myself and many others) implications of the changes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it deception, however; the text of the changes was quite clear. After considering it carefully, I would still have voted the same way, and hence I voted to keep the changes in the second vote. Several folks seem to wish to re-ignite the debate of whether or not the changes were editorial or not. Whether it was or was not, it's now over and done with. This GR is a separate, albeit related, issue. I'm still not entirely convinced that all documentation needs the same set of freedoms as programs. But the intersection of the freedoms we require of documentation, and the freedoms we require of programs gives us a very large common set of freedoms, with just one or two considerations which might be specific to one or the other. Given the huge problems of defining what is and is not documentation or programs, I'm still of the opinion that we should require and uphold the same set of freedoms of both, which obviously includes the ability to modify without restrictions on what is modifiable. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpt0PDGnb2Cj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Christopher Martin] If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them. And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR 2004-03 being deceptive. (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.) Either astounding or depressing. Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I wonder. I don't recall anyone saying that. Jerôme Marant, in this very thread, in a message you replied to (though he did not do so with the exact phrase above). -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it does use seems more than adequate. It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're interpreted. That's a strawman argument. The ballot options are not being ignored. Manoj is not leaving them off the ballot. The 3:1 supermajority issue is only relevant for options which are not being ignored. And Manoj is not changing the option. The option in question is making a statement about the DFSG. It says GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines. But until the option has been accepted as a successful GR, the proposal is not something we as a project have agreed to. If it passes, then it will be true that this issue isn't a 3:1 supermajority issue, but if it does not pass then this will not be true. If it was true for us, without us having to vote on it, the this wouldn't be an issue I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case, but it's his choice. And that seems to be the right choice. I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been voted on. As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above Further Discussion, and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking each other. I agree that voting on this issue is the best way to resolve it, and that attacking each other is not a good way of resolving anything. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant. All debian developers are required to understand and apply the DFSG -- the DFSG is critical to Debian. You don't need special powers to understand and apply the DFSG. Package maintainers are supposed to make judgements about the DFSG in the context of their packages. The same goes for the Secretary in the context of preparing the ballot. You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the constitutional duty of placing 3:1 supermajorities on amendments, etc. That's backwards. Essentially you'd be asserting that any delegate has _any power_ he or she deems necessary to fulfill his or her view of their own constitutional duties, unless explicitly forbidden, item by item, by the constitution. That's not my argument. And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial general resolution proposals as if they'd already won the vote before the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to. Because that's the only way I can see for getting from the constitution mentions that some votes should require 3:1 supermajorities to therefore the Secretary must be the constitutionally ordained arbiter of DFSG correctness for all votes. And this despite other constitutional verbiage that suggests that developers have that power. Huh. The Secretary is a developer. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to 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. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the developers follow when doing these things. And we're following those procedures. So where's the problem? The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my complaint. I've yet to see any description of your complaint that doesn't require me to accept that Anton's proposal is universally accepted by the project. But if I accept that Anton's proposal is universally accepted by the project, then the barrier you're talking about does not exist. So I'm faced with a contradiction: how can the Secretary be mis-using his power if this mis-use of power can only be a mis-use if it is not a mis-use? -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's protection, believe it or not. Really? Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea? Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25% against majorities as high as 74%. If 51% of developers vote for something that silly, there is not much we can do to save the project, frankly. Your attitude that we need hand holding and protection from ourselves is rather insulting. This is not *my* attitude; it is the attitude of those who wanted a 3:1 supermajority for changes to the Foundation Documents. What did they mean by this, if not that a mere majority could not be trusted with such things? I was, in fact, *against* that change, though I didn't feel strongly about it, and did not vote. It is now the rule. I assume that those who put it forward thought a mere majority could not be trusted with such things. For the record, the proposer and seconders of that GR (2003-03): Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Neil Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the constitutional duty of placing 3:1 supermajorities on amendments, etc. That's backwards. Essentially you'd be asserting that any delegate has _any power_ he or she deems necessary to fulfill his or her view of their own constitutional duties, unless explicitly forbidden, item by item, by the constitution. That's not my argument. And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial general resolution proposals as if they'd already won the vote before the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to. So by this reasoning, is the original GR proposal not controversial, whereas the other two amendments are? What's the key difference, if it isn't that the Project Secretary thinks one is correct and the others are not? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're interpreted. That's a strawman argument. The ballot options are not being ignored. I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents -- ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now in a sense, by continuing to leave bugs like #199810 unfixed. I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been voted on. Instead, he's acting as though they're false before they've been voted on -- personally, I don't think that's any better. A controversial false statement is just the inverse of a controversial true statement, afterall. Anyway, I think I've said my piece. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin uttered the following: No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I take umbrage at your insinuations. May I take umbrage at your insinuation that the vote to modify the social contract was illegitimate? Actually, the amount of umbrage I can bring myself to experience is somewhat tepid, since I am not sure I care a whit about your opinion anyway. manoj -- In Lexington, Kentucky, it's illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated: Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it? I find it strange you couch this in terms of honour and supervision. I do not understand how this can be; and I certainly do not hold this view, since I do not even understand it. I view this a ballot correctness issue. The ballot should be one that does not lead to contradictory situations,or else, in my opinion, the ballot is buggy. manoj -- Killing turkeys causes winter. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin told this: You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary? Someone has to, and I think the developers should. Because in the end, if the developers go completely mad and decide that EVERYTHING IS DFSG FREE, 3:1 won't stop them for long. They could just elect a like-minded DPL, replace the Secretary with someone more pliant, hold another vote... Please feel free to start the proceedings. Until then, I shall continue to act in a manner which I feel is a correct interpretation of my constitutional duties. The point is, you either trust the developers to be sane, or you don't and therefore think that you, or someone who agrees with you, should simply decide things by fiat. I don't accept that. As I have said, I do not see this as a matter of trust or honor or any of those things. I see this as a correctness of ballot issue. And it is quite possible for the developers to want to change/suspend the foundation documents, while being perfectly aware of what they're doing. Hence 3:1. Like in the vote to delay the editorial changes until post-Sarge. See, the system can work. Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way, the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah, now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls for strict majoritarianism. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Adedato's amendment seeks to interpret the DFSG, and is being ``allowed'' to do so. Interpretation of the DFSG is not the isseu. However, something that contravenese a clear dictum of the DFSG is a different story. manoj -- Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative. Peter da Silva Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated: Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it? I find it strange you couch this in terms of honour and supervision. I do not understand how this can be; and I certainly do not hold this view, since I do not even understand it. I view this a ballot correctness issue. The ballot should be one that does not lead to contradictory situations,or else, in my opinion, the ballot is buggy. That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't include supervisory elements. However, Debian is different, giving to the Secretary a variety of supervisory tasks, similar to those a chairmain has in chairing a meeting. Indeed, our Constitution gives to the Secretary the task of interpreting the Constitution in cases of doubt. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. I'd much rather there be someone whose job it is to understand and interpret the constitution and to point out to people when what they're trying to do in a GR doesn't make sense under the constitution, won't have the effect they're aiming for, or will involve complications that they don't realize. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape: That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also has the final decision for the form of the ballot. It would be remiss of me to let a ballot go by which i consider incorrect. Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. You know how to change the constitution. Currently, the secretaries role is far from being a rubber stamp. manoj -- To program is to be. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:10:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. I'd much rather there be someone whose job it is to understand and interpret the constitution and to point out to people when what they're trying to do in a GR doesn't make sense under the constitution, won't have the effect they're aiming for, or will involve complications that they don't realize. You don't need any special powers to do that, though, so there's no reason to expect that to be the secretary's job, rather than any developer's. And on the upside, if the person doing it doesn't have any special powers, they can't very well be accused of abusing them (or threatening to abuse them, or whatever else) when they make those points... (It would also mean that any interpretation is done when the code's being written; so the decisions are predicatable in advance, and if any of them appear to be wrong, they can be debated in advance, rather than being a distraction from a substantive debate that's trying to happen at the same time) Obviously it rules out any implicit interpretations, in the sense that the act of coding up the rules would make them explicit by definition. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't include supervisory elements. However, Debian is different, giving to the Secretary a variety of supervisory tasks, That's not true; the secretary's position in Debian is primarily administrative -- namely to take votes amongst the Developers and determine the number and identity of Developers. The two additional duties are exceptional: to stand in for the DPL when he's absent (with the tech ctte chair), and to adjudicate disputes about the constitution. Neither is supervisory in any case -- the difference being that supervision is an ongoing task, unlike both standing in while a new DPL is chosen, or adjudicating a dispute that's arisen. That doesn't mean taking on a supervisory role is bad or improper, though, just that it's not an unavoidable consequence of being Debian secretary. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Meh, -devel dropped. On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape: That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one. The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also has the final decision for the form of the ballot. It would be remiss of me to let a ballot go by which i consider incorrect. That's the way you see it, and it's an entirely fair view. It's not the only possible view, however. It would be just as possible to say I don't make the call on what's correct or not -- eg saying it was called `editorial amendments' because that's what the proposer thought it should be called, no other reason instead of it was called `editorial amendments' because I think that's the right thing to have called it. I think it'd also be easier on you, no more burdensome on the rest of us, and more efficient. It might be better at setting people's expectations: where they might expect the secretary to be unbiassed, or at least to pretend to be, presumably they wouldn't expect that of people proposing GRs. Obviously, YMMV, and it's YM that counts -- don't get me wrong, it's 100% appropriate for you to make the call which way you'll handle your role; I'm just saying I think the other choice would be better. Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. You know how to change the constitution. Currently, the secretaries role is far from being a rubber stamp. Hrm? I don't agree -- looking over the summary of ballot descriptions and setting 3:1 requirements seem incredibly minor to me; the rubber stamp aspect of running the vote and making announcements seems much more important. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:30:45AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, Adeodato's amendment is clear in its explanation that we believe that the GFDL does meet the spirit of the DFSG (so long as you have no invariant sections). [...] This argument-to-the-spirit is interesting: it is the claim that Debian should accept works where we believe that the intention of the license is satisfactory, even if the actual letter of the license is not and we have no clarification from the copyright holder. Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) Uh ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Debian doesn't have courts. The closest we've got is debian-legal, The closest thing to courts we have are DPL, TC, DAM, FTP masters and the Project Secretary. They have a final decision making power that effectively resolves any disputes among the developers. debian-legal is just an advisory board for them. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a very good example of the silliness it leads to. You won't be surprised to see the same fundamentalists as involved in debian-legal crusades. I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote: I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources) The usual suspects from time to time have already been trying to start an images madness on [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you care about Debian, please contribute sane ideas to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't editorial ! -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit : Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) This has already been voted. And the answer was no. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Did you ask FSF what they think about this situation? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit : Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) This has already been voted. And the answer was no. Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi, Xavier Roche wrote: I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources) It's not about us being holier than Stallman. It's about Stallman not caring that his new license is creating real world problems for everyone but the FSF because only the FSF has permission to relicense their stuff. The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi, You make good arguments and I agree with many points. But the following: 2006/2/8, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Even if for some reason that I am unable to fathom you do fervently believe that I am wrong in the above paragraph, then there is *still nothing* to say that we can't happily pass GRs that contradict each other. It would be foolish, sure, and perhaps reflect poorly on our ability to work through these things, but democracies pass laws like that the whole time and the courts seem to manage to resolve the contradictions. Debian has no courts to resolve contradictions. No-one has the authority to rule one way or the other. So we have to decide now, before the vote, if there is a contradiction or not. Since there is disagreement here already, we have a difficulty. There are democracies that work this way. In some countries, courts cannot rule a law unconstitutional because that is the role of parliament. If the legislature says it's constitutional, it is. Contradictions are solved by the legislature. The point being that courts apply the law, but do not create it. Back to the issue at hand. Given the only source of authority considered by debian is the developers themselves, what we need to do is draft a GR as follows (I think Manoj suggested something like this): If there is a belief that a GR contradicts the foundations documents, this contradiction can be resolved by: 1. The project secretary 2. A majority vote 3. A 3:1 supermajority vote 4. The project leader. 5. The technical committee 6. Debian-legal The only other possibility is to add a second option to every possible vote asking developers to say whether they think this requires a supermajority or not. Or commually binding arbitration system to sort this out. I hope this doesn't go that far. Note that the alternative to this process is for someone (usually a General, it seems) to stand up and tell the parliament not to be so damn silly, and to follow his interpretation of the constitution, or else. This usually ends badly for all concerned. We have no courts, so what's the alternative? If we get a super-majority of developers to say a majority is enough, we're home. If a majority of developers say a majority is enough, what does that mean? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Xavier Roche wrote: On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit : Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) This has already been voted. And the answer was no. Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ? Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists, only. I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. Then do so. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't editorial ! A lot of us thought it was far and beyond editorial, which is why GR 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the editorial one). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ? Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes. No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive wording, with 214 votes out of 911 developpers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
to, 2006-02-09 kello 15:13 +0100, Xavier Roche kirjoitti: On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ? Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes. No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive wording, with 214 votes out of 911 developpers. Please stop abusing that horse. We're running out of glue. -- Fundamental truth #2: Attitude is usually more important than skills. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote: I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. [...] Stallman is amazingly arbitrary and illogical about manuals and invariant sections, ignoring Moglen's advice that we can't rely on distinguishing bitstreams for deciding what freedoms are important. I welcome debian's consistent approach: if it's in main, it should follow the DFSG (at least in spirit as far as possible), no matter what sort of software it is (programs, manuals, and so on). Stallman tries to redefine software=programs and many follow. It's not about holier than Stallman but about what we understand as software. Just programs for PCs, programs for everything (inc. firmware), or computerised creative work in general? Software is a wider group than programs: if you know esperanto, software is programaroj rather than programoj. Unfortunately, similar arguments seem to happen for many languages, including French: do programme and logiciel differ for computers? The FSF promotion of the FDL looks like a fairly obvious example of working against FSF's aim, but I don't know their precise objective. FDL looks like a fairly cynical attempt to create an adware licence acceptable to legacy dead-tree publishers and few of them seem to use it. Someone mentioned the encyclopedia problem where including an invariant section on a topic prevents text being reused in a manual about that topic: that's just one of the more obvious problems. I believe the debates about program copyrights, computer-stored music, video and so on are essentially the same. The same freedoms fit. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 23:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not? I think that it is possible for people to disagree about such a question, and it seems crazy to me to say that anytime they disagree, it can be settled by majority vote. A vote after extensive public debate, I might add. If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who should be trusted? Apparently you think our Secretary is up to the task. But if in some hypothetical distant future Debian were to acquire a Secretary with a rather different interpretation of the DFSG - say one radically different from the interpretation which you yourself believe to be so utterly self-evident - would you be quite so happy then? Because ultimately this is a question of Debian's constitution, and of legitimacy. The constitution does not endow the Secretary with the power to interpret the DFSG. It does grant the Secretary limited power to adjudicate in small disputes of constitutional interpretation, but the DFSG is not the constitution. I think it wholly appropriate that when there is a dispute over DFSG interpretation of major importance the developers should vote. I believe this to be in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. While I may not always agree with the decision that results from a vote, I respect it far more than an Olympian decree. Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two votes were not about the GFDL. They were about changes to our foundation documents. You believe them to have been about the GFDL only because, again, you believe that the GFDL's unfreeness follows with inescapable obviousness from those changes, but that is clearly not a view which everyone holds. That some people had the GFDL in mind when crafting the editorial changes is their problem, not the Project's problem. I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I take umbrage at your insinuations. If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them. Christopher Martin pgpdrQeDtU2pI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right mess. Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring there is no contradiction. In the same line of thinking, it cannot be obviated merely by a single person declaring there is a contradiction here. Even if that single person, by constitutional decree, is the one who Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution (note, the constitution--not the DFSG, which is a foundation document but not the same thing as the constitution). -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1 suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong. Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social contract or DFSG. It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the right decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. They can be trusted not to lie. They cannot be trusted never to make a mistake. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no] If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no] Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no] As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances we've had in the votes to date. This way we can postpone removing the non-free DFSG docs forever! We can just always think of a new issue to raise. I find this dishonorable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 12:12 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit : Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't editorial ! A lot of us thought it was far and beyond editorial, which is why GR 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the editorial one). This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who should be trusted? So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless? No, because the developers might want at some point to modify/override a foundation document, while acknowledging that they are doing so (i.e. they do not view it as an issue of interpretation, but expediency, or a need to adapt to changing circumstances, etc.). That would certainly require 3:1. Christopher Martin pgpPQxq7tE1cU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone evil, stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone else such things in this debate. Well, Craig has. He's on your side, right? Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense. If a mere majority resolution can declare what the foundation documents mean, then the requirement of a supermajority is meaningless. Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority from changing the foundation documents. If it means anything, it means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a question. Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way, the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah, now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls for strict majoritarianism. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who should be trusted? So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two votes were not about the GFDL. Why did we take the second vote? Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. What about the second vote? How many votes do you need to lose, before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and over again? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Christopher Martin] If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them. And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR 2004-03 being deceptive. (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.) Either astounding or depressing. Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I wonder. I don't recall anyone saying that. This makes the deception claim all the worse. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two votes were not about the GFDL. Why did we take the second vote? Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. That was _one_ reason people wanted to delay implementing it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the resolution implicitly endorsed the unfreeness of the GFDL. People may have voted to delay the changes because they agreed with their general spirit, but didn't want to engage in hashing out their full implications right before Sarge, whether they thought the GFDL fine or not; better simply to postpone the whole mess until latter. Now, we're having that debate, and a vote to clarify the ramifications of the editorial changes. I see no repitition, no refusal to accept what has been settled. What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Because nobody could _really_ believe that the GFDL is OK. It's just inconceivable! Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense. We're just a herd of dangerous idiots and renegades. Far safer to endow a known right-thinking (and for all intents and purposes permanent) official with the necessary power to keep Debian pure and tell the developers what they should think... Yes, a few people are still publically bitter about the way the editorial changes were handled, but so what. Just ignore them. They're not calling for a vote to overturn the editorial changes. As it turns out, a number of people who agreed with the editorial changes don't believe that it follows from them that the GFDL should be removed, or that the GFDL without invariant sections should be removed. We're now trying to assert that view, and a vote will decide whether we're a minority or not. Christopher Martin pgpw5iVjc0IZ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an implicit grant of permission? There may be good examples of GFDL/GPL interaction problems, but the above example is absurd, IMHO. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone evil, stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone else such things in this debate. Well, Craig has. He's on your side, right? Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves. Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority from changing the foundation documents. If it means anything, it means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a question. You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary? Someone has to, and I think the developers should. Because in the end, if the developers go completely mad and decide that EVERYTHING IS DFSG FREE, 3:1 won't stop them for long. They could just elect a like-minded DPL, replace the Secretary with someone more pliant, hold another vote... The point is, you either trust the developers to be sane, or you don't and therefore think that you, or someone who agrees with you, should simply decide things by fiat. I don't accept that. And it is quite possible for the developers to want to change/suspend the foundation documents, while being perfectly aware of what they're doing. Hence 3:1. Like in the vote to delay the editorial changes until post-Sarge. See, the system can work. Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way, the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah, now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls for strict majoritarianism. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Christopher Martin pgpEKvlqYVg5L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the right decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary? If not, why not? If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not? If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement, does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the constitution, personally. This seems to be a moot distinction, given that the constitution says that the secretary is the judge in disputes about what the constitution means. (section 7.1.3) As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it does use seems more than adequate. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference between contradicts the foundation documents and modifies the foundation documents. First of all, you're assuming that it does contradict the foundation documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right mess. That would be a moot point, not a contradiction. Second, you're completely wrong. Of course there is a difference between modifying the foundation documents and appearing to contradict them. One modifies them and the other, well, doesn't. This can only be true where appearances are deceiving. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves. No, this is simply not the attitudes which underlay my viewpoint. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their interpretation is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature of a repeal, they must do so by a 3:1 vote. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. How is this relevant? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers? What did they say in response to questions like did you read the changes? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its license written by hordes of monkeys. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time and so I suppose you could be partially excused. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers? Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message. What did they say in response to questions like did you read the changes? I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. How is this relevant? It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what software is in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not editorial. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their interpretation is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature of a repeal, they must do so by a 3:1 vote. But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. The Secretary does, because he or she can judge whether something is a matter of interpretation or a modification. He/she therefore can arbitrarily decide what constitutes a legimitate and an illegitimate interpretation of the DFSG. Therefore, you willingly grant the Secretary the power to interpret the DFSG. The developers can only interpret the DFSG within the range allowed by the Secretary, or face the 3:1 obstacle. And indeed, our current Secretary refuses to countenance the idea that the GFDL being free is an acceptable interpretation. I happen to agree - I believe that only without invariant sections is the GFDL Free - but I don't think it's up to Manoj to tell us this, so I'm upset at the 3:1 requirement. Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to 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. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Christopher Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. How is this relevant? It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what software is in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not editorial. And how is this relevant? Please see the subject line. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to a minor power...in cases of deadlock. What it says is adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to 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. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Right. So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the DFSG? If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document. Would a GR that said Pine hereby passes the DFSG be ok? How about one that said Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may be added to the main Debian archive.? Neither of those explicitly revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would require a 3:1 vote. And removing the Even though the DSG and the SC say otherwise cannot possibly affect the matter. So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not DFSG-compliant. And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare it otherwise. If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to say so. The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination; he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning percentage. There just isn't any other way. If the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant, then a majority *cannot* declare it so, because it would be reversing the DFSG itself (just as if it said notwithstanding the DFSG and the SC, pine is hereby allowed into main). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely it does. People who say I was deceived; and I didn't bother to take elementary steps to avoid deception have chosen to be deceived. Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful. No, I do not agree. I have said nothing of the kind. Were you deceived by the 2003 amendment? No, because the second time I received the ballot I had time to waste and spent it reading the proposed changes. But just by reading the subject I would have believed too that these were trivial changes, just like in the precedent GR. Then why did you not alert people to the deception? Surely you realized how dangerous it was, voted against it, and warned other people of this deception, right? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to a minor power...in cases of deadlock. What it says is adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution. DFSG != constitution Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an out for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG? Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to 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. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Right. So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the DFSG? If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document. Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a clarification/interpretation of a foundation document? Would a GR that said Pine hereby passes the DFSG be ok? How about one that said Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may be added to the main Debian archive.? Neither of those explicitly revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would require a 3:1 vote. And removing the Even though the DSG and the SC say otherwise cannot possibly affect the matter. Yes, I would agree with you that such amendments _should_ have to meet the 3:1 requirement to pass. But I refuse to grant the Secretary the power to decide this. If a vote is proposed without it, and it gets the requisite seconds, etc. then it should be voted upon without it. If a majority of developers are really so dumb as to vote for such silly things, then there is no hope for the Project anyway, and not you, nor the Secretary, will be able to save it. This isn't perfect, I'll admit, but there is no more correct, more legitimate way to settle issues of interpretation than by majority vote, under the current constitution. I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from imposing them and makes a mess (despite my disagreements with Manoj, I'm not at all suggesting that he's this bad; I'm speaking hypothetically). Unless someone wants to propose a new Foundation Document Interpretation Board of annually elected developers to handle such issues, majority votes it must be (as infrequently as possible). So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not DFSG-compliant. No, that is NOT the question. And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare it otherwise. If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to say so. The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination; he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning percentage. There just isn't any other way. Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional way, which happens to be by respecting the will and common sense of the developers. The Secretary has no choice is backwards. The
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim? Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an out for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG? I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of disagreement. Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a clarification/interpretation of a foundation document? I certainly haven't refused to address it. The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a proper ballot. It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job. It is just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really right. There is no safe course; he must make a judgment, and then issue the correct ballot. This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in Debian requires it. For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do so. They do not need to wait for a ballot; they do not have to defer to the maintainer who uploaded it. It is their job to make this determination in installing packages into the archive. Likewise, I say, it is the Secretary's job to do so when preparing ballots for voting. I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from imposing them and makes a mess. So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know. So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not DFSG-compliant. No, that is NOT the question. If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of the DFSG to that extent. Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional way, which happens to be by respecting the will and common sense of the developers. The Secretary has no choice is backwards. The Secretary does in fact have no choice, as you say, but it is not to impose his/her own view of the DFSG on everyone else, but to refrain from doing so. The Secretary is not some Prince of Reason appointed to guard the DFSG. That is not in the constitution. If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the amendment does not alter the DFSG. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. Repeatedly asserts? I think, if you check my assertion, it included a direct reference to the text of the constitution that I was referring to. If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could say specifically what it is about what I wrote which conflicts with that part of the constitution? Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to 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. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the developers follow when doing these things. And we're following those procedures. So where's the problem? -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? The constitution says: ... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4). I think that's pretty clear. Also, you might want to read the references it lists. I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his powers in any way, shape or form. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the right decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary? Of course it should be. That's why I said it generally. As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it does use seems more than adequate. It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're interpreted. Of course, not saying anything about it leaves the matter up to interpretation, at least to some extent, and the secretary's certainly empowered to do that, both effectively (by controlling the way votes are taken) and formally (by 7.1(3)). I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case, but it's his choice. As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above Further Discussion, and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking each other. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 f?vrier 2006 ? 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a ?crit : On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its license written by hordes of monkeys. See the mail in -private entitled social contract and documentation policy dated 2 Jul 1997 19:39:59 -, and realise that the GFDL came out three years later in March 2000. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. Actually, it was mostly about firmware, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html Thank you for the correction. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:19, Raul Miller wrote: Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote. To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant. You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the constitutional duty of placing 3:1 supermajorities on amendments, etc. That's backwards. Essentially you'd be asserting that any delegate has _any power_ he or she deems necessary to fulfill his or her view of their own constitutional duties, unless explicitly forbidden, item by item, by the constitution. Because that's the only way I can see for getting from the constitution mentions that some votes should require 3:1 supermajorities to therefore the Secretary must be the constitutionally ordained arbiter of DFSG correctness for all votes. And this despite other constitutional verbiage that suggests that developers have that power. Huh. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to 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. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the developers follow when doing these things. And we're following those procedures. So where's the problem? The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my complaint. Christopher Martin pgpsvMFCwp83A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:18, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim? It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to do so, however carefully. Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an out for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG? I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of disagreement. Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of the constitution. Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a clarification/interpretation of a foundation document? I certainly haven't refused to address it. The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a proper ballot. It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job. It is just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really right. There is no safe course; he must make a judgment, and then issue the correct ballot. No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their job to ensure a proper ballot if ensuring a proper ballot would require them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG interpretation. They would have to suck it up and let the vote go ahead, and hope that the common sense of the developers prevailed. This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in Debian requires it. For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do so. The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote). The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations, etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon. I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from imposing them and makes a mess. So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know. Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves. If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the amendment does not alter the DFSG. No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of the proposal. Christopher Martin pgpFlu7i74LRe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of the DFSG to that extent. Unfortunately things are not as clear-cut as you would like to claim. You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not. Initially, we expect this determination to be made by individual developers, as you have pointed out. Individuals' judgements may be called into question by ftpmasters, who may ask debian-legal for comments. If there is no consensus, then we have a vote. We have *no* higher authority to determine the DFSG-compliance of a license than such a vote. So your statement is meaningless. The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. I'll refrain from arguing about what might happen in the event of a contradiction, as it's a pointless distraction at this juncture. Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant. The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else. The Constitution never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either. I didn't say he has the right to decide it for everyone else; I said he has the right to decide it when required in the course of his duties. For every single resolution, the Secretary must decide if it is a modification of a Foundation Document, and if it is, require a 3:1 majority. For him to require a simple majority would amount to a declaration that the resolution does *not* modify the Foundation Document. He cannot avoid making that determination. The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my complaint. I didn't say I was confused (or if I did, I didn't mean it in this way). I am perfectly clear about your complaint; I think it is groundless however. The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot; it his his determination what correctness is in each and every case using the voting procedure. For him to say this requires a majority requires him to have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the other. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:24:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. What about the second vote? How many votes do you need to lose, before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and over again? Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard resolution procedure are inappropriate. The constitution says that any K developers have the right to bring a resolution before the project for consideration. While I think there are cases where using a GR to override a decision is unwise and divisive, I don't think that a group of developers sincerely feeling that a previous vote has gone awry are one of those cases. If you think that they're *wrong* about whether these changes represent a majority opinion in the project, why spend any effort at all arguing on the mailing list? All you really need to do is cast your vote against the GR when it comes to vote. OTOH, maybe you don't think they're a vocal minority; maybe you think that they're genuinely a majority, or that their arguments are winning supporters. In that case, I think you would be better off arguing the issues instead. At the very least, I don't think we should be seeking to disenfranchise such a majority if it does exist. And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was representative. Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian, which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have their views represented as an option on the ballot. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim? It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to do so, however carefully. The phrase you used was personal whim. Whose judgment should he use instead? He may interpret the Constitution to require that implicit modifications of Foundation Documents require 3:1 just as explicit ones do. This is hardly a radical stretch. And, he must determine for every resolution whether it is a modification of a Foundation Document. He cannot shirk this responsibility; he must determine, and then issue the ballot. If he issues a ballot that says this requires a majority when it works a modification of a Foundation Document, then he has been remiss in his duties. He has indeed then violated the Constitution. There is no way for him to not decide, which seems to be what you think he should do. Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of the constitution. Read the above, please. No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their job to ensure a proper ballot if ensuring a proper ballot would require them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG interpretation. The Constitution is silent on who interprets the DFSG. It follows that it is the job of every developer in the course of their duties to do so to the best of their ability. In no way have I suggested that Manoj's interpretation of the DFSG should control ftpmaster, for example. It controls his execution of his duties, and nothing more. But also, nothing less. Issuing the ballot with a majority requirement when, in his opinion, the resolution effects a change to the DFSG, is a violation of the Constitution. The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote). It is however ultimately *their* determination. Yes, they should attend to consensus. But they are not beholden to it. I would note that Manoj explicitly requested comment here. He was (and I presume, is) quite happy to receive people's opinions about the proper form of the ballot. The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations, etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon. It is the *Constitution* which imposes the 3:1 requirement on changes to the Foundation Documents. It is the Secretary's job to give effect to that provision by creating correct ballots. If I propose a resolution that says This resolution is not a recission or modification of a Foundation Document. The text of the DFSG shall remain intact just as is. The main Debian archive may now include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute, whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not, are you seriously saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote? Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves. How can he refuse? If he refuses to interpret it, then he cannot assign the correct victory margin *AT ALL*. If he says this requires a majority then that *is* a determination that the resolution does not modify the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination. No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of the proposal. How can he say because this does not change the DFSG, it requires a majority without making a judgment that it does not change the DFSG? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not. No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he must make a determination as best as he can. The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. No. This is incorrect. The developers surely have the right to declare what the DFSG means; I have never challenged that. However, this does not specify by what majority they must act. The developers have the right to rescind the DFSG or close down the Project if they want, but this does not mean that a mere majority is sufficient to take those steps. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd documentation in main before long. Before or after the next renaming of creationism, I wonder? -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
