Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > preferences appropriately?
>
> Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to
> do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means
> that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen.
It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of
ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free,
non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that
difficult.
> > I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a
> > hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things.
>
> What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without
> clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free.
The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
turn out.
> Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will
> hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let
> people vote accrodying to this decision.
Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do
so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate
in the poll?
> Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the
> social contract later.
That's another option which doesn't require a poll.
> But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote.
Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this
since 2000 :-)
-- John
Reply to: