Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

[Manoj Srivastava]

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).

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
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).

Then mail the ballot to: [address to be filled in]
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism may not be able to decrypt your
message.

- - -=-=-=-=-=- 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


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

======================================================================

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".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
======================================================================

______________________________________________________________________



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

======================================================================
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, withdraw, and supersede 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.

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________



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

======================================================================
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
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
======================================================================

[Glenn McGrath]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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

[Joe Nahmias]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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.
"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".
ditto
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
Social Contract and the DFSG.

B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not* create a class
of Foundation Documents.

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.

Additionally, you might want to note somewhere in the ballot that all
three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as
they modify the constitution).

Hope this helps!
Joe Nahmias

[Branden Robinson]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.

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

Post by Manoj Srivastava
######################################################################
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.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution,

s/to/with/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General

s/an/a/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Resolution to Amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5.

s/Amend/amend/
s/Full/full/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003

Is "the full text" the right term to use? The ballot options you have
are comprehensive with respect to how they would alter the Constitution.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
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

s/preferred/most preferred/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller

s/next choice/next most preferred choice/

s/\./, and so forth until you have placed a number next to your
least-preferred choice./

Post by Manoj Srivastava
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all

s/2/5/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 2).

s/2/5/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further Discussion" as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the "Further

s/You/you/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further

s/equally the least desired choices/equally least desired/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).
Then mail the ballot to: [address to be filled in]

s/:// and don't forget the period at the end of the sentence.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism may not be able to decrypt your
message.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- 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

Why is "Further Discussion" fully capitalized but "No action" not?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I don't understand what is meant by "actual text", and the format of the
proposed change is not explained.

I reccomend:

Proposal A: Amend the Constitution as follows, by deleting the text
marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with
plus (+) signs at left.

[...]
As above.

[...]
As above.

[Jochen Voss]

Hello,

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- - -=-=-=-=-=- 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

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Jochen Voss
Hello,

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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?

Hmm. The old constitutional method, where we had two votes for
multiple alternatives, first where we selected the form of the
proposal, and second where we voted on the final proposal, had a
mandatory set of yes/no/further discussion options.

However, the new 1.1 amended constitution does not require
this, so option 4 goes. (In any case we can't mandate no discussions,
as Branden has pointed out in the past).

Here is the new version.

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 4. You may rank options
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).

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
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices,
and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).

Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled in]@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as
follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and
inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they
modify the constitution).

Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
includes the Social Contract and the DFSG.

======================================================================

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".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
======================================================================

______________________________________________________________________

Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not

*
create a class of Foundation Documents.

======================================================================
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, withdraw, and supersede 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.

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________

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.

======================================================================
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
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
======================================================================

[Joe Nahmias]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Here is the new version.
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.

Don't know how I missed this run-on... How about something like this:

The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.

Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

s/shall not be able/will be unable/

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not
*
create a class of Foundation Documents.

weird wrapping... anyone else see this, or is it just me? actually, i
checked the archives, it's messed up there as well.


That's it for now!

Joe

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Joe Nahmias

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.

Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?

The ballot is rejected as corrupt.

Post by Joe Nahmias

Post by Manoj Srivastava
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_
encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to
decrypt your message.

s/shall not be able/will be unable/

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

Post by Joe Nahmias

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not
* create a class of Foundation Documents.

weird wrapping... anyone else see this, or is it just me? actually,
i checked the archives, it's messed up there as well.

Should be better the next time around.

manoj

[Jochen Voss]

Hi,

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).

If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking
the last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the
"if any" should be omitted?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not
*
create a class of Foundation Documents.

The layout is broken here.

I hope this helps,
Jochen

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
the "Further Discussion" choice by the voting software).

If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking the
last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the "if
any" should be omitted?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?

No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic
in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the
the colored future system (described in
http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html).

In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the
subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal,
promise, offer, permission, command, &c. -- in such sentences the
first person has will/would, the second and third persons
shall/should.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not
* create a class of Foundation Documents.

The layout is broken here.

Hmm. That is not reflected in the on disk ballot.txt file -- I
guess something went wrong in the email version. I'll look into this.

manoj

[Oliver Elphick]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Jochen Voss

Post by Manoj Srivastava
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?

No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic
in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the
the colored future system (described in
http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html).
In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the
subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal,
promise, offer, permission, command, &c. -- in such sentences the
first person has will/would, the second and third persons
shall/should.

Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read the
sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.

The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a
voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or
purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will
behave, therefore the proper word to use is "will".
--
Oliver Elphick ***@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke
many people; and they shall beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall
they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Oliver Elphick

Post by Jochen Voss

Post by Manoj Srivastava
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
your message.

I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange
to me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?

No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic in
todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the
the colored future system (described in
http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html).
In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the subject's)
wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise,
offer, permission, command, &c. -- in such sentences the first
person has will/would, the second and third persons shall/should.

Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read
the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.

So you say. I beg to differ. (You should really examine the
sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the
subject's, and that the third person form was used).

Post by Oliver Elphick
The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a
voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention
or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how
it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is "will".

Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
of anthropomorphism.

In any case, this is no longer open to debate.

manoj

[Joey Hess]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
of anthropomorphism.

"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."

You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?

Post by Manoj Srivastava
In any case, this is no longer open to debate.

Well I'm glad you've settled that question of English usage. Would you
care to move on to the question of whether "they" is appropriate as a
neuter first-person pronoun? I've always wanted to get that one
settled..

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Joey Hess

Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
anthropomorphism.

"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?

I claim that it is permissible to say that Devotee shall fail
to decrypt your messages; indeed, I can state from reliable sources
that devotee has no intent to even attempt any such decryption in the
not so near future either. Not that I need anyones permission to so
state on the ballot.

Post by Joey Hess

In any case, this is no longer open to debate.

Well I'm glad you've settled that question of English usage. Would

I am happy that you are glad.

Post by Joey Hess
you care to move on to the question of whether "they" is appropriate
as a neuter first-person pronoun? I've always wanted to get that one
settled..

As I do not seem to have used that term in the ballot, that is
off limit for this list. Contact me offline if you wish to learn of
my opinion on that issue -- and I do have an opinion.

manoj
--
Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and going
around the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican theory;
but, when evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming that no
informed person can doubt it, it is customary for scientists to call
it a fact. That all present life descended from earlier forms, over
vast stretches of geologic time, is as firmly established as
Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with respect to theories
about how the process operates. Martin Gardner, "Irving Kristol and
the Facts of Life".
Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

[Branden Robinson]

Post by Joey Hess

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
of anthropomorphism.

"The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall?

Now, now. Don't make fun of people's animistic beliefs.

[Oliver Elphick]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read
the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.

So you say. I beg to differ.

Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and
I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
(You should really examine the
sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the
subject's, and that the third person form was used).

I did examine it.

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a
voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention
or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how
it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is "will".

I see that I gave a misleading description of the rule. The speaker's
intent can indeed mandate the use of shall for the second and third
person. However, that does not apply here, unless you wish to convey a
very unexpected meaning.

The paradigms of this usage are "I will drown and no one shall save
me!", expressing a determined intent to suicide, and "I shall drown and
no one will save me", describing the situation and expressing despair.
Here, "no one shall save me" - using the third person with "shall" -
expresses the speaker's fixed intention.

Your apparent intended meaning in

"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
able to decrypt your message."

is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent
its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps
that is what you mean.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
of anthropomorphism.

Devotee? I don't understand that reference.

Of course the original meaning of "will" is to express intention, and
you may still say, "He wills to do so and so" to express someone's
intention. But that is not the same as the normal future tense in the
second and third person. That is, of course, the whole point of this
grammatical rule.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
In any case, this is no longer open to debate.

It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read this
and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go unchallenged.
There are no doubt many native English speakers who need to learn it
too.

[Sven Luther]

Post by Oliver Elphick
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.

Devotee is the voting mechanism.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Oliver Elphick]

Post by Sven Luther

Post by Oliver Elphick
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.

Devotee is the voting mechanism.

Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Oliver Elphick

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick

Post by Oliver Elphick
Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to
read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct
English.

So you say. I beg to differ.

Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.

I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and
command of the language; I have lived for the last decade and a half
in university towns, where I have seen the absolute ignorance of the
rules of grammar and lately, the ability to construct a grammatical
sentence by native speakers of the language. Picking up a language
haphazardly when a child often does not compare to being taught the
language well.


Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of
usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these
distinctions have become moot.

Post by Oliver Elphick

(You should really examine the sentence you quote -- that it being
the speaker's intent, not the subject's, and that the third person
form was used).

I did examine it.

Post by Oliver Elphick
The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because
a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an
intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely
describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use
is "will".

I see that I gave a misleading description of the rule. The
speaker's intent can indeed mandate the use of shall for the second
and third person. However, that does not apply here, unless you
wish to convey a very unexpected meaning.

I have used the word consideredly, so look to what I did say,
not what you imagine I must be saying.

Post by Oliver Elphick
"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message."
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to
prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected
meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean.

*Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said.

Post by Oliver Elphick
Of course the original meaning of "will" is to express intention,
and you may still say, "He wills to do so and so" to express
someone's intention. But that is not the same as the normal future
tense in the second and third person. That is, of course, the whole
point of this grammatical rule.

And you continue to belabor the obvious.

Post by Oliver Elphick

In any case, this is no longer open to debate.

It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read
this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go
unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who
need to learn it too.

Misinformation? Has imprecision of usage become so
commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be
misinformation? If people do not understand what "shall" means in
context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot
when it comes to reading the constitution.

manoj

[Oliver Elphick]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.

I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and
command of the language;

I assume that refers to the statement that I am native English. If it
referred to the rest of what I said, it would be foolish and arrogant.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
I have lived for the last decade and a half
in university towns, where I have seen the absolute ignorance of the
rules of grammar and lately, the ability to construct a grammatical
sentence by native speakers of the language. Picking up a language
haphazardly when a child often does not compare to being taught the
language well.

I completely agree. That is not my situation, as I explained above. We
were taught grammar well, including the use of this particular rule.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of
usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these
distinctions have become moot.

That is probably so in colloquial English, whose speakers are largely
ignorant of grammar, and perhaps it is true of nearly all who left
school in England after, say, 1975. The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.

...

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message."
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to
prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected
meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean.

*Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said.

Really?

Do you then truly mean that it is your firm intention not to allow the
software to decrypt voting messages? Do you also wish that intention to
be the main thrust of the sentence?

Since that meaning is unexpected, it would be better to find another way
of expressing it. For example:

Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; I am determined not to give the
voting mechanism the ability to decrypt an encrypted message.

...

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read
this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go
unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who
need to learn it too.

Misinformation? Has imprecision of usage become so
commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be
misinformation? If people do not understand what "shall" means in
context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot
when it comes to reading the constitution.

What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it
is good style and reproduce it.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Oliver Elphick
What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they
think it is good style and reproduce it.

So you continue to say. In my experience second and third
person usage of shall and shall not is far from strained; and abounds
all over literary works. And your arrogance is showing again.

I am not going to post on this thread again; I have no
intention of taking up time on this silly notpicking; we have a vote
to run.

manoj

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Oliver Elphick

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being
taught.

I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and
command of the language;

I assume that refers to the statement that I am native English. If
it referred to the rest of what I said, it would be foolish and
arrogant.

My, for someone who fails to understand the meaning of the
word "shall" in this context, we sure have a high regard of our
command of the language

Post by Oliver Elphick
What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they
think it is good style and reproduce it.

I would suggest people make their own judgement on this, I am
afraid that you have failed to impress me as a paragon of style and
grammatical correctness.

manoj

[MJ Ray]

Post by Oliver Elphick
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.

Sir,

I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction wholly absurd. The two
phenomena are correlated, but are obviously linked by time. The 1970s
saw popularity of a number of alternative English teaching practices,
which did not teach grammar explicitly, but also had other defects
(such as not correcting spelling). However, I know that some schools
continued to teach English in a more traditional manner until the
introduction of the National Curriculum. It is possible that some
managed to continue beyond that, but I do not know them.

I cannot see why you think comprehensive schooling caused so-called
"trendy teaching". As further evidence, attainment statistics
reportedly show a broadly similar change over the same period of time
across both selective and comprehensive areas. From anecdotal
reports, the same teaching methods seem to have been used in selective
schools.

I apologise that this is now heading off-topic for the list.

[Smurf]

Hi,

Post by Oliver Elphick
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.

That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-/

'Nuff said, and sorry for being somewhat-off-topic.

[Jochen Voss]

Hi,

now I am really confused.

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Oliver Elphick
"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message."
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to
prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected
meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean.

*Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said.

Again, for the non-native english speakers among us.
You do not want the voting mechanism to be able to
decrypt messages. This is not a technical limitation
but you want the votes to be sent unencrypted over
the internet. Is this what you want to say?

Sorry about the confusiuon,
Jochen

[Joel Baker]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of
usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these
distinctions have become moot.

In point of fact, "native speakers" of en_US have largely discarded the
use of "shall" entirely; it is, in spoken form, a very archaic and/or
formal word, and rarely occurs outside of formal proceedings such as legal
documents (where, on the other hand, it is regularly found used in ways
which describe actions that will be forced on the subject under threat of
whatever penalties can be levied).

My impression (from regular conversations about such topics with en_GB
speakers I see on a daily basis) is that this is much less true in that
variant of the language.

In point of fact, if you ask a high school teacher in the US today, you're
likely to get the answer "It's correct usage, but will probably confuse
your audience, so it should be avoided in some situations."

The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it
is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler
and more easily construed one, such as "The voting mechanism cannot
currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be
rejected." Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature,
and a very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical
documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system are,
by nature).

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Joel Baker
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as "The voting
mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt
your ballot, it will be rejected."

The replacement text you propose does not convey the same
meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in
less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. ("shall not"
is a more emphatic term, and the "cannot currently handle" implies
intent that is not correct).

Post by Joel Baker
Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a
very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical
documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system
are, by nature).

I somehow doubt that people won't replace "shall" with
"will"; or that some how "He shall not" is construed as "He may" by
my fellow non-native speaker.

manoj

[Joel Baker]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Joel Baker
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as "The voting
mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt
your ballot, it will be rejected."

The replacement text you propose does not convey the same
meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in
less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. ("shall not"
is a more emphatic term, and the "cannot currently handle" implies
intent that is not correct).

Then I submit that your meaning is not, in fact, clear to a significant
portion of the only audience that makes sense for this to be addressed
to (that being 'Debian Developers', those who can cast votes).

Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system might
someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for Life, though,
your successor could, in theory, implement it - which means the emphasis
given by using shall is, in fact, incorrect - you do not have the power to
enforce your statement of intent, past your own tenure).

Perhaps "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism is not written
to handle encrypted ballots, and rejects them" would work? It makes no
implicit statements about the future, it clearly describes the current
situation, and it entirely avoids the question of will/shall.

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Joel Baker
Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a
very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical
documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system
are, by nature).

I somehow doubt that people won't replace "shall" with
"will"; or that some how "He shall not" is construed as "He may" by
my fellow non-native speaker.

Given the context surrounding it, and the fact that it is an explanatory
statement that expands upon a very short and straightforward directive, the
fact that it is ambiguous to a significant number of en_GB speakers, and
the vast majority of en_US speakers (who appear to form a majority of your
audience) is not a crisis - but that doesn't mean that ambiguity is a good
thing for this form of communication.

Or you could simply remove the entire clause, and choose not to expand on
the directive at all, though that seems less than optimal.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Joel Baker
Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system
might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for
Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which
means the emphasis given by using shall is, in fact, incorrect - you
do not have the power to enforce your statement of intent, past your
own tenure).

You planning on replacing me, getting a successor, and having
them write a replacement for Devotee, all in the next 14 days? If
not, my statement, made in the context of this vote, still stands.

manoj

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Joel Baker

Post by Joel Baker
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument,
and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such
as "The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted
ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected."

The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning
as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less
precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. ("shall not" is
a more emphatic term, and the "cannot currently handle" implies
intent that is not correct).

Then I submit that your meaning is not, in fact, clear to a
significant portion of the only audience that makes sense for this
to be addressed to (that being 'Debian Developers', those who can
cast votes).

If people cannot understand:

"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
able to decrypt your message."

they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.

manoj

[Peter Karlsson]

Post by Oliver Elphick
"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
able to decrypt your message."
they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.

To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a
jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read
encrypted ballots.

I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it
says that your use of "shall" is valid in British English, but only for
the first person, not for the third person as it is used above. "I
shall not be able to...", but "It will not be able to...".

It also says that the use is archaic and should be avoided. I tend to
agree, it just confuses people (as you may have noted from the
multitude of posts about it).

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Peter Karlsson

If people cannot understand: "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the
voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message." they
should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.

To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a
jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read
encrypted ballots.

As long as you do not send encrypted ballots, your speculation
about the reasons does not matter.

Post by Peter Karlsson
I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it
says that your use of "shall" is valid in British English, but only
for the first person, not for the third person as it is used
above. "I shall not be able to...", but "It will not be able to...".

I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.

manoj

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi,

Post by Manoj Srivastava
I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.

Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.

The simple rule is that you (used to) use "will" when the subject of the
sentence is identical to the person who has the intent, and "shall"
otherwise.

Disclaimer: If this is utterly wrong, my brain shall lay the blame upon
my memory. ;-)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
I think you need a better grammar book.

I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of
weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has FAR too
many.

I suggest trying [2]. Hey, that page even says that the traditional
rules say to use "will" in the second person, unless you intend it to be
a command --- and I have no idea why it would be. [3] also notes that
the distinction is obsolete, especially in en_US. [4] and [5] give
similar comments about non-usage in en_US, and alternate meanings in
en_US.

Considering the number of clearer, alternate ways to express the same
thing, I don't see the sense in sticking with using "shall" in that
sentence.


FOOTNOTES
1. As opposed to the one cited in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200310/msg00030.html
2. The American Heritage® Book of English Usage
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html
3. Guide to Grammar and Style
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html
4. http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm
5. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/page/page/226236.htm#8280

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Manoj Srivastava
I think you need a better grammar book.

I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of
weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has FAR too
many.
I suggest trying [2]. Hey, that page even says that the traditional
rules say to use "will" in the second person, unless you intend it
to be a command --- and I have no idea why it would be. [3] also
notes that the distinction is obsolete, especially in en_US. [4] and
[5] give similar comments about non-usage in en_US, and alternate
meanings in en_US.
2. The American Heritage® Book of English Usage
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html

Lets go with this one.

the traditional rules. The traditional rules state that
you use shall to show what happens in the future only when
I or we is the subject: I shall (not will) call you
tomorrow. We shall (not will) be sure to keep in
touch. Will, on the other hand, is used with subjects in
the second and third persons: The comet will (not shall)
return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably
encounter some heavy seas when you round the
point. However, you can use will with a subject in the
first person and shall with a subject in the second or
third person to express determination, promise,
obligation, or permission, depending on the context.

Devotee shall not parse encrypted mail -- that is indeed a promise,
given the time frames involved, (and also the technical reasons it is
so). I used the term advisedly.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
3. Guide to Grammar and Style
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html

If you send encrypted mail, Devote _shall not_ save you, used
similarily as in the drownling example.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
4. http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm

"Using shall in second and third persons would indicate some kind of
promise about the subject."

Quite so.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
5. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/page/page/226236.htm#8280
Hi,

Post by Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson
I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I
will ... They shall.

Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.

But the simpler rule did not suffice.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
The simple rule is that you (used to) use "will" when the subject of
the sentence is identical to the person who has the intent, and
"shall" otherwise.

Not quite. See the rule above.

manoj
waxing didactic.

[Peter Karlsson]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.

I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going
to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not", not the
sense that you do not want it to have the option (active from your
part), which would be "it shall not".

If the latter was the intent, than "it shall not" is indeed true, but
from the other messages in the thread, I got the impression that you
tried to convey the first meaning, in which case "shall" would be
inappropriate.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Peter Karlsson

I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I
will ... They shall.

I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not
going to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not",
not the sense that you do not want it to have the option (active
from your part), which would be "it shall not".

Well, that is partially true, but is not the entire reason for
the construct; given the time table of the voting period, the current
state of the code, my time constrainst, the technical reasons why
encrypting to the (insecure) vote key is not a great idea,
decryption shall not happen, at least for this vote.

Post by Peter Karlsson
If the latter was the intent, than "it shall not" is indeed true,
but from the other messages in the thread, I got the impression that
you tried to convey the first meaning, in which case "shall" would
be inappropriate.

I wish people would give me a modicum of credit for being
conversant with the language. However, I am indeed opposed to giving
Devotee the ability to decrypt messages in the near term. However,
for the purpose of this vote, you can bank on the the expectation
that devotee shall not, indeed, decrypt your ballot.

manoj

[Manoj Srivastava]

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
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices,
and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).

Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled in]@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 4: No action
[ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as
follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and
inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they
modify the constitution).

Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
includes the Social Contract and the DFSG.

======================================================================

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".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
======================================================================

______________________________________________________________________

Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not

*
create a class of Foundation Documents.

======================================================================
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, withdraw, and supersede 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.

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________

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.

======================================================================
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
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
======================================================================

[Sven Luther]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
______________________________________________________________________
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

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Sven Luther

Post by Manoj Srivastava
______________________________________________________________________
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.

There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
itself.

The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social
contract, and can't be treated differently.

The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
specifically.

You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.

manoj
waiting for the fiend

[Sven Luther]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Sven Luther

Post by Manoj Srivastava
______________________________________________________________________
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.

There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
itself.

Yep, and this is, i think, something that needs clarification before the
vote starts, maybe even to go in the rationale before the ballot is
officialized.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social
contract, and can't be treated differently.

A 'part', i suppose you wanted to say.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
specifically.

Ok, that is no problem, the real question is about variant C.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.

Ok Branden, what is your opinion on this ? Could you clarify the wording
on this, altough if i remember well, you made your position already
clear previously on this list, but a clarification in the rationale
going on the ballot would be a good thing.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Branden Robinson]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
itself.

I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
serve distinct functions.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
specifically.
You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.

I share your interpretation. It might be wise to add some information
to the rationale statements on proposals A and C:

If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the
Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian
Free Software Guidelines as distinct works.

(I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even
yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the
independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe
enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it. We've had a
completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project
Secretary before [not you], and we survived.)

I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for
proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the
separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to
the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments
were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody
proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is
time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds
before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try.

Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options
are free to rank "further discussion" as their first choice.

In any event, if any of proposals A, B, or C passes, we can amend the
second sentence of clause one of the Debian Social Contract to
externalize the reference to our Free Software guidelines.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

Yet another update for the ballot. I've corrected run on
sentences, removed a "me" from the rationale, added clarifications in
the rationale that the proposal intends the DFSG and the SC to be
considered distinct works.

manoj

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


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

The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard
Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution.

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 4. You may rank options
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).

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
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices,
and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).

Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled in]@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as
follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and
inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they
modify the constitution).

Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
includes the Social Contract and the DFSG.

======================================================================

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".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys. An assumption of this proposal is that
the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines are
distinct works.
======================================================================

______________________________________________________________________

Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not*
create a class of Foundation Documents.

======================================================================
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, withdraw, and supersede 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.

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________

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.

======================================================================
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
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
There may be some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social
Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but who do not wish
to extend this opportunity to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. An
assumption of this proposal is that the Debian Social Contract and
Debian Free Software Guidelines are distinct works.
======================================================================

[Joe Nahmias]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard

s/delinated/delineated/

Other than that, looks good.

Joe

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

Post by Joe Nahmias

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Yet another update for the ballot.
conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard

s/delinated/delineated/

Fixed now.

manoj

[Osamu Aoki]

Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me.

Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.

I am talking following sections:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and

^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Manoj Srivastava
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and

...
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

Post by Manoj Srivastava
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Manoj Srivastava
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and

...


Osamu

[Branden Robinson]

Post by Osamu Aoki
Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me.
Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.

[...]

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
agree with a 2:1 majority.
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
agree with a 2:1 majority.
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post by Manoj Srivastava
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and

I concur with the global replacement of "super-majority" with
"majority".

It was (IMO) a flaw in Manoj's original proposal that I did not manage
to notice when proposing editorial alterations.

Because "majority" is well-defined within the Constitution's Standard
Resolution Procedure, it is redundant and possibly confusing to use the
term "super-majority" (which, if we did use, shouldn't have a hyphen in
it).

[Branden Robinson]

Post by Osamu Aoki
Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.

[as discussed with Manoj on IRC]

I hereby request that the Project Secretary amend the "Proposal C"
ballot option, which I proposed, to use the term "majority" instead of
"super-majority".

I further suggest that any permutation of the term "super-majority",
including "supermajority" and "super majority", also be altered to
"majority" in those portions of the ballot which are not options.

Sorry to delay the onset of voting for this.

[John H. Robinson, IV]

I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor typographical
change. It is good to be consistent.

-john

Post by Branden Robinson

Post by Osamu Aoki
Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.

[as discussed with Manoj on IRC]
I hereby request that the Project Secretary amend the "Proposal C"
ballot option, which I proposed, to use the term "majority" instead of
"super-majority".
I further suggest that any permutation of the term "super-majority",
including "supermajority" and "super majority", also be altered to
"majority" in those portions of the ballot which are not options.
Sorry to delay the onset of voting for this.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by John H. Robinson, IV
I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor
typographical change. It is good to be consistent.

A. Standard Resolution Procedure

A.1. Proposal

A.1. Discussion and Amendment

6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor
errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or
changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects
within 24 hours. In this case the minimum discussion period is
not restarted.

manoj
fighting hobgoblins

[Aaron M. Ucko]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).

Please space the inequality evenly (which may require moving it to the
next line). Alternatively, you could substitute [1, 4].

Post by Manoj Srivastava
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]

[...]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they

[...]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and

Which is it? Or is it "supermajority"?

[Manoj Srivastava]

I have a couple of typographical nits: Manoj Srivastava

[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]

[...]

these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they

[...]

Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and

Which is it? Or is it "supermajority"?

And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
used interchangeably?

manoj

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi folks,

Here is the current incarnation.

manoj

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

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

The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the
Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard
Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution.

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 4. You may rank options
equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).

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
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices,
and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further
Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
Discussion" choice by the voting software).

Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled in]@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP
signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed]
[ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as
follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and
inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of
these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they
modify the constitution).

Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
includes the Social Contract and the DFSG.

======================================================================

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".
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 super-majority for its
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys. An assumption of this proposal is that
the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines are
distinct works.
======================================================================

______________________________________________________________________

Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not*
create a class of Foundation Documents.

======================================================================
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, withdraw, and supersede 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.

======================================================================
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents.
======================================================================
______________________________________________________________________

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.

======================================================================
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
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
There may be some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social
Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but who do not wish
to extend this opportunity to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. An
assumption of this proposal is that the Debian Social Contract and
Debian Free Software Guidelines are distinct works.
======================================================================


The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.

gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
pub 1024D/D49177F9 2003-10-13 The Section 4.15 Constitutional Amendment GR key (This is a temporary, insecure key to be used for a single vote only) <***@vote.debian.org>
sig D49177F9 2003-10-13 [selfsig]
sig BF24424C 2003-10-13 Manoj Srivastava <***@golden-gryphon.com>
sub 1024g/A2C1E191 2003-10-13 [expires: 2003-11-03]
sig D49177F9 2003-10-13 [keybind]

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
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=qo2F
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
--
...the Soviets have the capability to try big projects. If there is a
goal, such as when Gorbachev states that they are going to have
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the case is closed -- that is it.
They will concentrate on the problem, do a bad job, and later pay the
price. They really don't care what the price is. Victor Belenko,
MiG-25 fighter pilot who defected in 1976 "Defense Electronics", Vol
20, No. 6, pg. 100
Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
used interchangeably?

Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a majority is
defined as "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the
total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer require a
majority, we require a supermajority, "a specified majority of votes,
such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass
legislation."[1]

[0], [1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition via dictionary.com

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
interchangeably?

Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a majority
is defined as "The greater number or part; a number more than half
of the total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer

Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater
than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad
bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
require a majority, we require a supermajority, "a specified
majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion
or pass legislation."[1]

So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a
supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half
its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority.

manoj
often thankful he is not a native speaker of the English language

[Sven Luther]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
interchangeably?

Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it.

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a majority
is defined as "The greater number or part; a number more than half
of the total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer

Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater
than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad
bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority.

As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a
majority.

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
require a majority, we require a supermajority, "a specified
majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion
or pass legislation."[1]

So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a
supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half
its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority.

No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix hints
at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being
supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being majorities
which are not supermajorities).

I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
super majorities.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Sven Luther

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Manoj Srivastava
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms
be used interchangeably?

Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a
majority is defined as "The greater number or part; a number more
than half of the total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no
longer

Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than
half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit
over half so we can just barely call it a majority.

As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.

Then your understanding is incorrect.

2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of
mankind; a majority of the votes cast.
[1913 Webster]

Could be 99.99% of the votes cast, would still be a majority.

4. The amount or number by which one aggregate exceeds all
other aggregates with which it is contrasted; especially,
the number by which the votes for a successful candidate
exceed those for all other candidates; as, he is elected
by a majority of five hundred votes. See {Plurality}.
[1913 Webster]
majority
n 1: the property resulting from being or relating to the greater
in number of two parts; the main part; "the majority of
his customers prefer it"; "the bulk of the work is
finished" [syn: {bulk}] [ant: {minority}]
2: (elections) more than half of the votes [syn: {absolute
majority}]
MAJORITY, government. The greater number of the voters; though in another
sense, it means the greater number of votes given in which sense it is a
mere plurality. (q.v.)

Post by Sven Luther

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
require a majority, we require a supermajority, "a specified
majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a
motion or pass legislation."[1]

So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a
supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than
half its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority.

No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix
hints at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being
supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being
majorities which are not supermajorities).

Your interpretation is not supported by the dictionaries out
there. Indeed, the sentence you have quoted shows that a super
majority is merely a majority with a specified number of votes, as I
noted.

Post by Sven Luther
I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
super majorities.

You probably need to file another GR to change all such
references in the constitutions, since there are several references
to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
be clarified too).

manoj

[Sven Luther]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Sven Luther

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Manoj Srivastava
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms
be used interchangeably?

Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a
majority is defined as "The greater number or part; a number more
than half of the total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no
longer

Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater than
half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad bit
over half so we can just barely call it a majority.

As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.

Then your understanding is incorrect.

Sure, sure whatever.

<... skipped lot of good english definitions ...>

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Sven Luther
I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
super majorities.

You probably need to file another GR to change all such
references in the constitutions, since there are several references
to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
be clarified too).

Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just use
one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of the
constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere, instead
of introducing the super-majority term.

I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word only,
and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid doubt and
confusion.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Sven Luther

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther

Post by Sven Luther

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Manoj Srivastava
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the
terms be used interchangeably?

Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it.

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there
is a distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a
majority is defined as "The greater number or part; a number
more than half of the total."[0]. If we require more than
50%+1, we no longer

Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater
than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a
tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority.

As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is
a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a
60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly
more than a majority.

Then your understanding is incorrect.

Sure, sure whatever.

... skipped lot of good english definitions ...>

Post by Sven Luther
I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by
3:1 super majorities.

You probably need to file another GR to change all such references
in the constitutions, since there are several references to
majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
be clarified too).

Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just
use one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of
the constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere,
instead of introducing the super-majority term.

Words are not divorced of their meanings, and using two terms,
both of which are applicable, ought to be acceptable.

Post by Sven Luther
I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word
only, and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid
doubt and confusion.

I am afraid that if you want to outlaw synonyms, you certainly
may, but it goes far beyond the scope of the current set of
proposals, and I certainly am not authorized to go about amending
random bits of the constitution simply because synonyms may cause
confusion.

My suggestion would be, in case of confusion, to look it up in
a dictionary; there are some fairly good ones online now.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/S0899900.html, for example.

manoj
--
Till then we shall be content to admit openly, what you (religionists)
whisper under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the
ancient secret is a secret still; that man knows nothing of the
Infinite and Absolute; and that, knowing nothing, he had better not be
dogmatic about his ignorance. And, meanwhile, we will endeavour to be
as charitable as possible, and whilst you trumpet forth officially
your contempt for our skepticism, we will at least try to believe that
you are imposed upon by your own bluster. Leslie Stephen, "An
agnostic's Apology", Fortnightly Review, 1876
Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Sven Luther
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.

Then your understanding is incorrect.
2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of
mankind; a majority of the votes cast.
[1913 Webster]

So, then, 51% would be enough, but proposals A and C require 3:1.
That's more than a majority; hence, supermajority.

More important than arguing over definitions is, I think, consistency.
Let's just pick one of the words for the GR. Using both words makes the
reader wonder if there is a sane reason to do so, and he starts trying
to figure out how a "3:1 majority" is different from a "3:1
supermajority". It seems to be fairly normal and expected to used the
same word consistently in technical and legal documents (unlike novels,
for example). I suggest we do so.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

Post by Manoj Srivastava

Post by Sven Luther
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.

Then your understanding is incorrect.
2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of
mankind; a majority of the votes cast. [1913 Webster]

So, then, 51% would be enough, but proposals A and C require
3:1. That's more than a majority; hence, supermajority.

Does no one look at definitions any more? A 51% supermajority,
or a 99% supermajority, are both majorities, and equally valid.

A supermajority is merely a majority where you explicitly
state how much the major part has to be compared to the whole (like,
50.0001% super majority)

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
More important than arguing over definitions is, I think,
consistency. Let's just pick one of the words for the GR. Using both
words makes the reader wonder if there is a sane reason to do so,
and he starts trying to figure out how a "3:1 majority" is different
from a "3:1 supermajority". It seems to be fairly normal and
expected to used the same word consistently in technical and legal
documents (unlike novels, for example). I suggest we do so.

Well, kinda late in the game, no? The discussion period
started 2 weeks ago, and this was immediately preceded by *MONTHS*
where contributions and critiques were invited.

manoj
thinking about consistency and hobgoblins

[Dylan Thurston]

--=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Post by Manoj Srivastava
And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
used interchangeably?

Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a majority is
defined as "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the
total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer require a
majority, we require a supermajority, "a specified majority of votes,
such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass
legislation."[1]
[0], [1] The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition via dictionary.com

But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to fix this?

Peace,
Dylan

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Post by Dylan Thurston
But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to fix this?

as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't
gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort,
though.

[Sven Luther]

Post by Branden Robinson

Post by Manoj Srivastava
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
itself.

I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
serve distinct functions.

Post by Manoj Srivastava
The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
specifically.
You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.

I share your interpretation. It might be wise to add some information
If the Constitution is amended with the language of this proposal, the
Project Secretary shall interpret the Debian Social Contract and Debian
Free Software Guidelines as distinct works.
(I'm not sure you can formally bind future Project Secretaries, or even
yourself, to this imperative, but it feels wrong to encode the
independent clause above into the Constitution, and I think we're safe
enough if we cross that bridge when we come to it. We've had a
completely clueless constitutional interpretation from the Project
Secretary before [not you], and we survived.)
I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for
proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the
separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to
the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments
were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody
proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is
time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds
before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try.

Ok.

Notice that this interpretation is fine with me too, i just wanted to
make this clear before the voting start, in order for there not being
confusion during the voting period, and since the subject has been
raised in past discussion, as you said.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

[Richard Braakman]

Post by Branden Robinson
I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
serve distinct functions.

Nevertheless, the document entitled "Debian Social Contract" includes
both parts, plus an introductory paragraph. The part titled "Social
Contract with the Free Software Community" is the one commonly referred
to as the "Social Contract" on its own, though it depends on context.
You can verify this at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.

Post by Branden Robinson
I can't say I have much sympathy for people who want to vote for
proposal A or C but do not share your and my premise regarding the
separateness of these works. This issue came up immediately prior to
the discussion period when the texts of the Constitutional amendments
were being drafted, we were both clear with our opinions, and nobody
proposed an amendement. As a practical matter, I am not sure there is
time for a new amendment to be proposed and receive sufficient seconds
before the discussion period ends, but folks are welcome to try.

I reported it as a bug and you chose to ignore it. You are of course
free to twist that into somehow being my fault for failing to report
it more vigorously. The opinion you stated was:

Well, then, shouldn't this amendment be accepted? We can ensure that
this interpretation gets "read into the record", as it were.
It is Manoj's proposal that treats the two documents disjunctively. If
that's incorrect, it should be fixed.

(where "this interpretation" refers to mine, which you quoted directly
above.)

I thought this meant you agreed with me, and would issue a new proposal
to give the alternative you intended. Now I see that you intended to
keep the wording but add an interpretation that contradicts it.

Since my problem is with the rationale, not with the wording, what
amendment could I have proposed? I prefer the wording of C to that
of A because it's more accurate.

Post by Branden Robinson
Those who are horrified by all three of the (operational) ballot options
are free to rank "further discussion" as their first choice.

No, I'll vote B A F C. Proposal A's list is redundant but unambiguous.

Richard Braakman

[Dylan Thurston]

Post by Sven Luther

Post by Manoj Srivastava
______________________________________________________________________
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.

Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas
expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical
document that should not need a supermajority to change.

Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like
this?

Peace,
Dylan

[Manoj Srivastava]

Post by Dylan Thurston

Post by Sven Luther

Post by Manoj Srivastava
______________________________________________________________________
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.

Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas
expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical
document that should not need a supermajority to change.

The web page for the vote has been up on www.d.o for 13
days. We are 13 days into a 2 week discussion period. Shouldn't this
have been brought up before now?

Post by Dylan Thurston
Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like
this?

I did ask proposers (well, proposer) for a better
rationale. And it is meant to be a rationale -- not a full blown
argument for the proposal. This mailing list is the proper forum for
presenting arguments for and against the proposals, and indeed, the
archives list voluminous debates on these issues in days past.

I am not sure the resulting constitution should be burdened
with an extended set of arguments for an amendment that has passed
and is now a part of the constitution -- and that is the intent of
the rationale; to provide a short footnote in the constitution; not
a means for voters to make their decision.

manoj

[Richard Braakman]

Post by Manoj Srivastava
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
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
+ supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
======================================================================
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
======================================================================

Editorial note: If you're not the "me" that is speaking here then you
should clarify that or rephrase. IIRC you're quoting Branden.

I also think the rationale is at odds with the proposal, because the
work entitled "Debian Social Contract" includes the DFSG.
(Its title seems to vary a bit; doc-debian calls it "Debian GNU/Linux
Social Contract". Was that the original title?)

This inclusion isn't accidental; point 1 specifically says "As there
are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we
use to determine if software is "free" below."

Richard Braakman

[Branden Robinson]

Post by Richard Braakman

Post by Manoj Srivastava
======================================================================
It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the
Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not
wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
======================================================================

Editorial note: If you're not the "me" that is speaking here then you
should clarify that or rephrase. IIRC you're quoting Branden.

Please replace my rationale statement for proposal C with the following:

======================================================================
There may be some people who may wish to afford the Debian Social
Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but who do not wish to
extend this opportunity to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
======================================================================

Also see my earlier remarks about adding a declaration regarding the
separateness of the SC and DFSG to the rationale statements for
proposals A and C.

[David Coe]

Manoj Srivastava <***@debian.org> writes:

I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.

Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.

what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
of the three does? I expect our *intent* would be to act on Proposal
B, since its change is included entirely in A and C -- is that what
would happen, or do wee need to disambiguate the disambiguation vote?

Thanks.

[Steve Langasek]

Post by David Coe
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.

what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
of the three does? I expect our *intent* would be to act on Proposal
B, since its change is included entirely in A and C -- is that what
would happen, or do wee need to disambiguate the disambiguation vote?

No, if none of the three individually meets the 3:1 majority, then none
of the items on the ballot passes. You clearly have the option to vote
for all three (or any of the three) proposals as being preferred over
'Further discussion', and rank them individually according to your
preference. If your *intent* is that you like A best, but think B is
acceptable, then that's how you should vote. If you didn't vote that
way, it's not valid to assume you *really* meant that B was an
acceptable alternative.

[Smurf]

Hi,

Post by David Coe
what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
of the three does?

Sorry, wrong question.

This is a Condorcet vote; we don't sum anything.

[Branden Robinson]

Post by David Coe
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.

what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
of the three does? I expect our *intent* would be to act on Proposal
B, since its change is included entirely in A and C -- is that what
would happen, or do wee need to disambiguate the disambiguation vote?

No, the proposals are considered "atomic", and each must succeed or
fail on its own merits.

Historically, I proposed something similar to proposal B first, back in
2000, and it was Manoj's objection to that which prompted him to draft a
prototype of proposal A. It is therefore not reasonable to assume that
those who like proposals A or C would be comfortable with proposal B
passing.

[Andrew Suffield]

Post by David Coe
I apologize if this has already been discussed, and for not raising
the question earlier.
Because A, B, and C all make the same change to the first sentence of

Post by Manoj Srivastava
- 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ 5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.

what will happen if none of them receives a 3:1 majority, but the sum
of the three does?

This question makes no sense in a condorcet voting system. The sum of
what?