Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:37:33 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> said:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:54:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:53:56 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > Yes, I found this eventually. I merely suggested that it would
>> > have been helpful to have a link in the CFV.
>> The best time to make that suggestion would have been _before_ the
> I didn't think the matter was worth bringing up on a mailing list,
> and you must forgive me if I was hesitant to contact you directly
> based on the way you usually respond to me.
The debian-vote mailing lists's charter is for exactly this
kind of content.
>> Are you happy with the the RFD that went out recently? Or do you
>> think that title too is deceptive, or that the body of the RFC
>> (which shall be boiled down into the ballot, modulo amendments)
>> needs more information?
> Oddly enough, it has the same problem as the 003 CFVs. There is no
> obvious path from this RFD which explains the actual changes to be
I have linked the document that Andrew had detailing his
> It refers to rescinding "`Editorial Amendments To The
> Social Contract' (2004 vote 003)". Someone who, for example, was
> indisposed during that particular vote, would not know what this
Well, there is a link one level above, but I've added a
hyperlink to the GR page.
> So our hyopthetical voter (we hope) finds the link to
> http://www.debian.org/vote/ in the footer of the message and follows
That is a general sig added to my email, and is not modified
for each email. Additionally, when the email was drafted, the web
page did not yet exist; though a problem with Gnus
quote-print-escaping my clear signed text caused a delay in its
appearing on the devel announce page.
> it (a direct link would have been nice). There, they find a
> hyperlink "General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social
> contract" which has the same problematic "The Social Contract text
> shall be replaced with <monolithic blob>", and no link to the (much
> more useful) annotated changes that Andrew Suffield provided. The
> 003 RFD did, but there is no reference to that, either.
Since that change
> You'll note that at no point in this discussion have I accused you
> of deception, so there is no need to be defensive about that. This
See? talking to me politely works better than calling me a
liar, cheat, and demagogue.
> is a matter of convenience for, and helpfulness toward, the
> developer community, by saving them the time and effort of
> independently searching mailing lists and web pages to find the
> information they need in order to cast a responsible vote.
Well, and it makes it more work for me, for which I may not
always have time. So, often, you get whatever I have the time to put
up -- of course, people can alway help out by providing patches.
The changes shall appear when the web pages refresh.
I never killed a man that didn't deserve it. Mickey Cohen
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