[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:31:55AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> 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.

> > 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?

Ah.  I didn't understand earlier that you meant you felt deceived by the GR
as someone who voted in favor of it.  This is rather surprising to me; I
was taken off guard by the immediate consequences of the GR, but I had no
doubt as to its intended meaning -- i.e., that all bits in the archive
should be treated under the same rules.

> > 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?

Were you being gratuitously crass when you said

 > Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
 > them often win.

in response to 

 >> A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you
 >> are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists,
 >> only.

?  If you meant it sincerely, the only way I can read it is as a statement
that the GR only passed because of a vocal minority.  If this is true, how
does this *not* imply that there is a silent majority that disagrees with
the outcome?

> I just said you cannot draw conclusions about the consent of 1000
> developers, out of a 3:1 majority among 200 developers. Period.

Well, no, by mentioning extremist minorities I think you were doing quite a
bit more than saying we can't draw conclusions; but anyway, your point is
clear now.

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

Hmm, fair enough; your comments did seem awfully parallel to those of Marco,
who *does* question the validity of the vote (repeatedly...).

> > 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.

Well, as I said, if you don't think this is the correct outcome, it's in
your power to change it.  I think that developers changing their minds about
a particular ballot option *is* a legitimate reason to have a new vote.  I
would rather see a second vote on the same question, than to see developers
feeling that their project has been co-opted by an extremist minority.

I disagree that I'm an extremist and I don't believe that I'm a minority,
but I do respect your right to prove me wrong. :)

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

Reply to: