On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:24:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes: > > On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote: > >> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely > >> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* > >> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I > >> suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply > >> unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the > >> project forever. This is not honorable behavior. > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have > > tought about this. > What about the second vote? How many votes do you need to lose, > before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and > over again? Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard resolution procedure are inappropriate. The constitution says that any K developers have the right to bring a resolution before the project for consideration. While I think there are cases where using a GR to override a decision is unwise and divisive, I don't think that a group of developers sincerely feeling that a previous vote has gone awry are one of those cases. If you think that they're *wrong* about whether these changes represent a majority opinion in the project, why spend any effort at all arguing on the mailing list? All you really need to do is cast your vote against the GR when it comes to vote. OTOH, maybe you don't think they're a vocal minority; maybe you think that they're genuinely a majority, or that their arguments are winning supporters. In that case, I think you would be better off arguing the issues instead. At the very least, I don't think we should be seeking to disenfranchise such a majority if it does exist. And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was representative. Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian, which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have their views represented as an option on the ballot. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature