Re: Bundled votes and the secretary

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:13:23AM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > 
> > For gosh sakes man! Try to be polite! Any child can see that GFDL
> > invariants violate the DFSG because they cannot be modified.
>  
> Concur. GFDL + invariants clearly need to change the DFSG since the DFSG
> doesn't allow things which can't be modified [DFSG3]. GFDL - invariants
> is equally clearly possible without changing the DFSG. Ergo, 3:1 for the
> former and simple majority for the latter.
> 
> On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Josslin wrote:
> > > For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the
> > > Constitution is
> > > perfectly correct.  
> > 
> > Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
> > deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way (similar
> > options get a different treatment), and without any thought for
> > following the constitution itself.
> 
> I'm sorry, how is it not relevant? The secretary interprets the
> constitution [7.1.3]. If the interpretation is correct then he has
> followed the constitution.
> 
> Choice 6 says "firmware in Debian does not have to come with source".
> DFSG2 says "The program must include source code". Please tell me how
> you can _possibly_ reconcile those two statements without modifying the
> DFSG and therefore requiring a super majority. 

The point is, the secretary chooses interpretations that suits his own
proposals to the vote. Explain to me how the "release lenny" options
need [3:1] supermajority where the very same vote didn't need it in the
past ?

from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq

   Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues

   1.  We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
       community (Social Contract #4);

   2.  We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
       firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3.  We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
       progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
       relative to the Sarge release in Etch

   4.  We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every
       bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
       firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs
       as long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and
       firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as
       long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
       distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.


and from the current vote:

   Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware

   1.  We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
       community (Social Contract #4);

   2.  We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
       issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of
       the last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues
       in the kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these
       new issues have not yet been addressed;

   3.  We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
       progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
       relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our
       knowledge as of 1 November 2008);

   4.  We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
       every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
       sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver
       firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally
       allowed to do so.


Now explain to me how a genuine interpretation of the Constitution let
the former need simple majority and the latter super majority.



-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org