On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote: > 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. >
Actually, I have to agree with Martin on this. Although I don't like systemd, I also think it would be inappropriate for the Project Leader to propose a GR if it has already failed to get enough votes. Now if a DD wishes to propose it again, that would be more appropriate. >>> 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? > Obviously the DDs think they are doing the right thing. I happen to disagree with them, but I don't think this invalidates the social contract. > > [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. > I disagree. I think they are doing the work and should have the power. And even if as you said - how are you going to get all of the users in the world (or even 1% of them) to understand and make an intelligent choice on any situation. >> 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? > It is an even better reason to have people who are intimately involved in the code and know more than most users have more power. >> 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? > I see nothing untrue about the document. > The page says the document was last changed over ten years ago[1]. A > lot can happen within ten years. > > And I see nothing which needs to be changed in the social contract. Jerry -- 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/543c8a8b.1030...@attglobal.net
