Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict
On Mon May 04 11:50, Ben Finney wrote:
No. I'm saying that there *are* such mechanisms, as pointed out earlier.
If a GR informs positive action but it's okay to interpret it as
“non-binding”, then we don't have a good basis for preventing actions
in contradiction to the GR. If, on the other
On Sat May 02 19:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're
explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any of
our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides what
does and does not modify foundation
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Sat May 02 19:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're
explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any
of our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides
On Sun May 03 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hm. Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for. Most of the classes of
binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me. Binding GRs
are:
* Appoint or recall the Project Leader
* Make or override a DPL or delegate decision
* Make or override a
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Sun May 03 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hm. Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for. Most of the classes of
binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me. Binding GRs
are:
* Appoint or recall the Project Leader
* Make or override a DPL or
On Sun May 03 06:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do
see 2.1.1: Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on
anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a
task which has been delegated or assigned
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 (GFDL w/o invariant sections is
free, 1:1)
Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be binding
since the people who were doing the
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 (GFDL w/o invariant sections is
free, 1:1)
Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's
interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally valid.
The GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going
through
On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.
This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in
conflict
On Sat, May 02 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone
in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group.
I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all
new members to declare they will uphold
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire
project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.
This seems to advocate the
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
I think that is somewhat of an orthogonal issue. I don't think anyone
would disagree that the vote:
We agree to ship the nvidia binary drivers in main
conflicts with one of the foundation documents. At the moment, however,
we could run that vote
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a majority,
I would contend that you're
On Sat May 02 07:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
To recap, the counter-argument is that such a *non-binding* position
statement is obviously nonsensical and hence people aren't going to
follow it even if it passes, which it won't because it's non-sensical.
In other words, you're making a reductio ad
Clint Adams sch...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
If you think there's any serious danger of that passing with a
On Sat, May 02 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Clint Adams sch...@debian.org writes:
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 07:10:07AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The Debian project believes that shipping NVidia drivers in main is
consistent with the current DFSG and Social Contract.
If you think
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
with being false for other people?
Of course it can be! That would only not
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously
with being false for other people?
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
I was trying to demonstrate that there are things which are in
conflict with a foundation document and that something needs to be
done about vote options which are such conflicts but don't explicitly
amend that document.
Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, I do
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the
foundation documents” can be true for some people
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation
documents”refers to a different set of documents depending on
Hi
There seem to be some disagreements about the terms in the subject. As
far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear though and would not need any
vote to clarify:
Overriding is only used in combination with decisions. You cannot
override a document or its interpretation/meaning. You can only
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.
[...]
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constitution, they are
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.
[...]
So I don't really see what we
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation document
(which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are you
saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
around by putting out a position statement, and have
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict with an FD) means that we
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I think Manoj's point is that if voting some
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation
On Fri, May 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I
On Fri, May 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
uphold the social
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
It really shouldn't; as a group we
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option
On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option that doesn't do so. So that would be option 2
39 matches
Mail list logo
