Martin Read <zen75...@zen.co.uk> writes: > On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote: >> Bas Wijnen <wij...@debian.org> writes: >>> Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to >>> be seconded by at least 5 other members (constitution 4.2.1, 4.2.7). >>> This has not happened. >> >> I know, and I'm suggesting to omit this requirement. > > Technically, there *is* a way for a GR to be brought forward for > discussion and voting without having six DDs supporting it: the > Project Leader can personally propose it. The Project Leader has not > done so, and the Debian Constitution does not place any obligation on > the holder of the post of Project Leader to propose any particular > General Resolution. > > Any change to these constitutional arrangements would require the > Debian Constitution to be amended, which (per the Constitution) > requires a General Resolution validly proposed under the existing > arrangements and then passed by a 3:1 supermajority in the ensuing > vote. > > I would argue in any event that it's probably inappropriate for the > Project Leader to propose a General Resolution which has already been > proposed by a DD and failed to receive the required number of > sponsors.
This sounds like a very bad situation to me in which Debian has gotten stuck. It's a good reason to re-consider the rules and to change them so that getting stuck with an issue these rules are not adequate to deal with hopefully doesn't come up so easily again. It's also a good reason to let the rules be rules and to do what it is right instead --- no harm would come from having a GR. >> Then they shouldn't say in their social contract that the users and >> their needs are the priority. > > It is precisely *because* decisions in Debian are not made by the > users-at-large, but only by the Debian developers, that the social > contract by which the developers are expected to abide when working on > the Debian project must explicitly state that the interests and needs > of the users are important. The contract doesn't claim that the interests and needs of the users are important. It says: "We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments [...]"[1] It is irrelevant whether the needs or interests of the users are important. The contract merely claims that the interests of the users are the first priority. That's a pretty strong statement, actually. Do you feel more like that what the contract says is actually true or more like that it is not? If the contract was true, then how could Debian let itself get stuck in the bad situation as decribed above? [1]: https://www.debian.org/social_contract > This, of course, leads us to two interesting points: > 1) the Debian Developers are themselves users of Debian Then they should have no more or less power to make decisions than users have. As long as they have more power to make decisions than users have, the interests of the users are not the first priority of the developers. > 2) the Debian user community is not a monolithic entity whose > constituent parts have uniform and identical interests and needs Isn't that another good reason to not let a (small) part of the users have more power than another (larger) part? > Besides, I very much doubt a proposal to redraft the DSC in a way that > removed the passages about the importance of the users would receive > even a 1:1 majority, let alone the 3:1 majority required to supersede > one of the constitutionally-designated Foundational Documents. Why would such a document need some kind of majority to be changed when what it claims is obviously not true? To what it shall be changed is a different question which might require some sort of majority. Do the Debians have no honour, or do they think so low of themselves that they would keep up false claims in their constitutional documents? The page says the document was last changed over ten years ago[1]. A lot can happen within ten years. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oatfa5fx....@yun.yagibdah.de
