Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:48:58 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:25:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And how else would you characterize people who ignore a message
>> sent to them thrice that showed exactly what was being proposed to
>> be new SC, and then turn around an whine that they did not know
>> what the changes proposed were, and that the title selected by the
>> secretary was deceiving?
> The ballot did indeed contain the full "new" SC, but it did not
> contain the text of the old SC (for comparison), nor did it contain
> a diff. On top of that, it made a judgement about what type of
> changes were being made (that they were editorial), a judgement that
> seems to have led some people to not investigate what was being
> voted upon ("oh, it's editorial, it won't be important then").
> You could explain that as being "apathic". Others explain it as
> "receiving incomplete information, leading to some people making an
> incorrect decision" -- or, to put it otherwise, "being mislead".
If you are a DD, and do not know how to get to the current
social contract, or you do not know how to compare two documents, I
think you should consider resigning.
Every vote, especially vote regarding changes to foundation
documents, require a modicum of due diligence on the part of the
electorate. People too lazy to put in the effort required to compare
two documents, and who want to be spoon fed predigested pap are not
those whose opinion ought to matter.
Would you care to drift aimlessly in my direction?
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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