Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:44:20PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> This ballot is nonsense:
> a) I want to decide on requirements of source of firmwares AND allow
> lenny to release with DFSG violations AND "proprietary" firmware
> AND empower the release team to release with DFSG violations
> b) why have a "reaffirm the social contract" option when we have
> "further discussion"? We all agreed to honor the social contract
> Apart of the noise of choice 1, this ballot doesn't empower us to
> decide on the 4 different questions.
It is possible that my interpretation of the whole voting process is
different from what the project at large has always considered it to be,
but if I may disagree, I would say that the ballots are nothing but a
way to choose a general resolution text.
We approve one whole text per vote, which means people cannot get to
pick fragments of text individually in order to put them all together
and form a binding resolution, especially as I do not see a clear way
for proposals to get rejected that way in a Condorcet system unless they
do not reach the quorum.
If no single proposal satisfied you entirely, and you would prefer that
the project, under article 4.1 of the Constitution, ruled on two of the
matters simultaneously, you should have submitted an amendment that put
everything together in one option which you could vote on, not rely on
the ability to vote on different proposed texts with one shot.
I am not blaming anyone or claiming to be right here; just giving the
issue some random thought.
Guilherme de S. Pastore