headers
Simon Law | 1 Oct 2003 09:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ======================================================================
> 
>  4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> 
>    4.1. Powers
> 
>     Together, the Developers may:
>      1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
>      2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>      3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
>      4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
>         agree with a 2:1 majority.
> -    5. Issue 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.
> +    5. 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.
> +   5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
> +       critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
> +   5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
> +       Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Simon Law | 1 Oct 2003 09:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: [AMENDMENT BR3] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:29:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > ======================================================================
> > 
> >  4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> > 
> >    4.1. Powers
> > 
> >     Together, the Developers may:
> >      1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> >      2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> >      3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
> >      4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
> >         agree with a 2:1 majority.
> > -    5. Issue 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.
> > +    5. 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.
> > +   5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
> > +       critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
> > +   5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Manoj Srivastava | 13 Oct 2003 06:36
X-Face
Picon
Favicon

Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

Hi folks,

	Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
 3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
 the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes out
 on Tuesday.

	Comments and feedback appreciated.

	manoj

######################################################################

     Votes must be received by  [time to be filled in]

This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution,
Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General
Resolution to Amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5.
The Full text of the amendment can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003

HOW TO VOTE

Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.

In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all
choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 2).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 73 comments |
headers
Glenn McGrath | 13 Oct 2003 07:33
Picon

Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> 	Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
>  3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
>  the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes out
>  on Tuesday.
> 
> 	Comments and feedback appreciated.

I looked at A and C a few times without noticing the difference between
them.

It could be made clearer, would it be accpetable to add something like
the following.

Proposal A and C differ only in their definition of existing Foundation
Documents.

Glenn
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joe Nahmias | 13 Oct 2003 08:08

Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment


Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	Comments and feedback appreciated.

> In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
> the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
> than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all
> choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 2).

Obviously, you mean between one and five, as there are that many options.

> Proposal A:  	 The actual text of the proposal A is:

"Actual text"?  As opposed to what?  Maybe you mean the complete text, or
perhaps leave the adjective off altogether...  Also, you don't need the
second "the".

> Proposal B: 	The actual text of the Proposal B is:

ditto

> Proposal C: 	The actual text of the Proposal C is:

AOL.

Also, it might be nice to include a small summary of the effect of each of
the proposals.  For example:

A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents.  Creates Foundation
Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Branden Robinson | 13 Oct 2003 08:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.

Thanks for circulating this draft.  I have some editorial suggestions.

> ######################################################################
> 
>      Votes must be received by  [time to be filled in]

Don't forget a period at the end of this sentence when you fill in the
time.

> This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution,

s/to/with/

> Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General

s/an/a/

> Resolution to Amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5.

s/Amend/amend/

> The Full text of the amendment can be found at:

s/Full/full/

> http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jochen Voss | 13 Oct 2003 09:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

Hello,

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [   ] Choice 1: Proposal A
> [   ] Choice 2: Proposal B
> [   ] Choice 3: Proposal C
> [   ] Choice 4: No action
> [   ] Choice 5: Further Discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I understand that "Further Discussion" is the default option,
while "No action" is not.  So wouldn't Choice 4 need five seconds
to go into the ballot?

Jochen
--

-- 
http://seehuhn.de/
Permalink | Reply | 32 comments |
headers
Manoj Srivastava | 13 Oct 2003 11:03
X-Face
Picon
Favicon

Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

Hi guys,

	Many thanks to the people who provided feedback. Here is
 another _draft_  which incorporates the suggested improvements.

	manoj

######################################################################

     Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003.

This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
4.1.5.  The text of the amendment can also be found at:
 http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003

HOW TO VOTE

Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.

In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a
2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not
enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 5. You may rank options
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 5).

To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further Discussion" as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "Further
Discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 36 comments |
headers
Sven Luther | 13 Oct 2003 12:59
Picon

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents.  Creates
> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
> includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.

Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the
opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is
felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to
more easily change it.

Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we
don't have ambiguities later on.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Richard Braakman | 13 Oct 2003 17:27
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ======================================================================
>  4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> 
>    4.1. Powers
> 
>     Together, the Developers may:
>      1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
>      2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>      3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
>      4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
>         agree with a 2:1 majority.
> -    5. Issue 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.
> +    5. 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.
> +   5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
> +       critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
> +   5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debian
> +       Social Contract".
> +   5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane