Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Neither the CFVs nor http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 provided a
> meaningful account of the changes between the previous Social Contract and
> the proposed one. This would have been very helpful to those of us who
> don't read yet another mailing list, since weeks passed between the RFD mail
> (March 24th) and the First Call for votes (April 11th).
There's a problem with this: it's hard to get a totally objective
summary of changes for many things you can vote on. It's not
realistic to expect that the proponents write such a summary, and if
the opponents are not organized, they can't speak with a single voice
Therefore, I think it's best to keep the contents of the CfV at the
barest possible minimum, and only describe the voting procedures and
the actual changes which are voted on (and not potential side
We don't have any evidence that this would have helped in this case,
either. It might have increased participation because the voters
could have felt more confident that they have made the right decision
after reading the CfV. But the CfV wouldn't have provided the crucial
bit of information that our Release Manager would go on strike.
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.