XPost: linux.debian.devel

Package: general
Followup-For: Bug #1028557
X-Debbugs-Cc: debbug.1028557@sideload.33mail.com

Why do you say enforcement is necessarily bound to the judicial system
of a state?

Rules can be written and enforced entirely without a state-backed
authority. Consider a scenario as simple as a bar having rules and
then bouncing a rule-breaking customer. Or more formally, a university
campus has their own rules. If you break the rules they have an
arbitration process where you can address a panel of your peers and
argue your case. The school argues their case, and the panel of peers
decides the outcome. That process happens entirely without any
lawyers, judges, or state actors involved.

The Debian Project is staffed and those people have powers¹. E.g. the “technical committee” can:

4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).

The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish
to; this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
implemented.

It’s a bit vague though in terms of the actions and penalties. But I
guess it’s implied that a project can be removed from the Debian
system. The procedures are described here:

https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte

** Still a bug **

I agree there is a bug here. The Debian Social Contract does not refer
to the Debian Constitution as the enforcement mechanism, and the
Debian Constitution does not claim jurisdiction over enforcement of
the Debian Social Contract. It seems a bit sloppy that the Debian
Constitution only says statements may be made about the social
contract in paragraph 4.1.5.2. Some verbiage needs to be added to both
docs to establish enforcability.

(footnotes)

① https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)