>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I'd appreciate if the Council could produce their input regarding
>> Daniel's propossal to modify the Gentoo Social Contract
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8c8534195597ca34ebb3e3bb0a042b3e
>> after the meeting. Mostly because I plan on bringing it up for
>> approval on the next board meeting (and hopefully ratification on
>> the next Foundation member vote) since nobody has come up with a
>> better propossal yet.

> IMO it would make more sense to just change the list to
> gentoo-project and fix the metastructure before having a debate over
> which body oversees the social contract.

Either that, or if we change it we should be very cautious not to do
any radical changes. Here is my suggestion for the first paragraph:

| This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
| development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
| team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian
| Social Contract. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Please
| send them to our gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list.

Or as a pseudo-diff with line breaks inserted (since in the markdown
source it is all in one long line):

--- a/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md
+++ b/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md
@@ -12 +12 @@
This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
team. Parts of this document have been derived from the [Debian
Social Contract](https://www.debian.org/social_contract).
-It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts have been
-clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant have been
-removed.
-Comments are welcome.
+Suggestions for improvements are welcome.
Please send them to our
-[gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org](mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org)
+[gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org](mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org)
mailing list.

Rationale:

1. Our version is clearly derived from the Debian social contract,
   so removing the attribution would be bad style. Also [1] explictly
   says: "Other organizations may derive from and build on this
   document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do."

2. That there are augmentations and removals follows from the fact
   that it is a derived document, so I agree that the third sentence
   is completely redundant and can be removed.

3. The "are welcome" wording is reminiscent of "patches are welcome".
   Keeping it because I like this.

4. Avoid the debate if this is primarily a council or trustees matter.
   Members of both bodies should listen to gentoo-project, so using
   this list seems right. Also I expect changes to be rare, so this
   shouldn't add any significant traffic to the ML.

Another question, should we add a version number to the document (as
Debian does for theirs)? Or alternatively, the date of last update?

Ulrich

[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html