Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield (email@example.com) [040620 01:10]:
> [This is just a thinly veiled personal attack; filling in the gaps for
> people who haven't followed -vote]
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC [needs 1:1]
> > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
> > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the
> > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot.
> Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary
> rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it
> should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure
Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh?
> Here's the thread root:
> And here's Manoj's brief analysis:
The reason is - as discussed on d-vote - that dropping half of the
statement (the part about "our social contract tells us we should
release") does change that proposal in an unacceptable way.
Furthermore, a lot of developers asked me - through mail or on IRC -
to not put some further option on the ballot to make it not even more
> > > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters.
> > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not
> > important to release.
> I already covered this one in my first mail, but anyway: this is based
> on the assumption that our users are best served by non-free
> software. See the thread parent for a more detailed rebuttal.
Are you dumb or a lying? Again: Our users are served good by:
- a current stable release
- free software
At the moment, we don't have any of them. Our stable release contains
items which are non-free, according to your interpretation of the
social contract (have you ever taken a look to
/usr/share/info/gcc-295.info.gz on a woody system?).
For someone who lives in the real world, and where time does matter,
I'm convinced that we should release now, and that also our social
contract encourages this. You may of course disagree, but please stop
ad-hominem attacks, and malicious gossip. Thanks.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C