Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>
> [...] I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
> a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our
> future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the
> DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thorough, point-by-point
> rebuttal of the position statement was given on -vote or -legal (to the
> best of my knowledge; I'd love to be wrong). [...]
More than unfortunate, it makes that ambition impossible without
telepathy or further surveying, as far as I can see. There seems
little point just guessing what motives produced a pi=3 statement.
It should be noted that even though the Standard Resolution
Procedure resolved the disagreement, a 211:145 (roughly 3:2) split
when comparing the first two options is hardly a great consensus.
There remains a deep division over whether FDL'd works follow DFSG.
Personally, I find it disappointing that so many people ranked
opposite views high, then FD below them. I think the "no,
no matter what" description of FD in the ballot is unhelpful
and deters compromise attempts. I don't think we've insincere
voting patterns, but strange ones:-
; grep -c 'V: 12..' vote_001_tally.txt
67
; grep -c 'V: 11..' vote_001_tally.txt
5
; grep -c 'V: 21..' vote_001_tally.txt
59
Looks to me like voting for a resolution, no matter what it
says, rather than making two opposing views seek compromise.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: