Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Jérôme Marant <jmarant@free.fr>]

Quoting Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:

> > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
> > counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
> > convinced they have been deceived.
>
> > Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
> > them often win.
>
> Referring to 20% of your fellow developers[1] as a "very loud [extremist]
> minority" is absurd, particularly when only 5% of the remaining "majority"
> could be bothered to vote against.  You may not agree with the decision that
> was taken, but insulting your peers for their views on the question just

Not all pros in this GR are what I call extremists.  I suspect some of them
did not expect the consequences of modifying the SC that way.  After all,
weren't they editorial changes?

Whether or not you don't like the silly game I played with them (yes, I lost
my time playing this stupid indulging game) in the bug report it pointed you
too, doesn't make the bug report less silly w.r.t. DFSG interpretation.
I stand that this interpretation come from fundamentalists.

> makes you look like an ass.  If you really think this vote was stolen from
> the majority, put your money where your mouth is -- find five other

Where the hell did I say it was stolen from the majority?
I just said you cannot draw conclusions about the consent of 1000
developers, out of a 3:1 majority among 200 developers. Period.

I'm not happy with the results, but I've never questions the validity
of the vote.

> developers who agree with you and put up a GR to overturn the Social
> Contract changes.  Encourage your fellow developers to vote -- *regardless*
> of which way they're going to vote -- so we can finally put this question to
> rest.
>
> BTW, votes in Debian *are* public, you know; and
> <http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt> clearly shows you
> voted in favor of modifying the Social Contract.  Could you make up your
> mind which vocal minority you intend to be a part of, please?

I thought it was editorial changes, but it looks it was not.

I thought there were some bits of common sense with interpreting DFSG,
so modifying the SC was OK. But it seems _some_ people wants that
"every byte in main shall be covered by a free software license, whatsoever".
I think it is insane, so modifying the SC was not a good idea after all.

> > Dictorship of Minorities shall be opposed.
>
> So shall Running of the Mouth on mailing lists.

Sorry, I don't get it.

--
Jérôme Marant