Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> It should be noted that even though the Standard Resolution
> Procedure resolved the disagreement, a 211:145 (roughly 3:2) split
> when comparing the first two options is hardly a great consensus.
> There remains a deep division over whether FDL'd works follow DFSG.
> 
> Personally, I find it disappointing that so many people ranked
> opposite views high, then FD below them. I think the "no,
> no matter what" description of FD in the ballot is unhelpful
> and deters compromise attempts. I don't think we've insincere
> voting patterns, but strange ones:-
> 
> ; grep -c 'V: 12..' vote_001_tally.txt
> 67
> ; grep -c 'V: 11..' vote_001_tally.txt
> 5
> ; grep -c 'V: 21..' vote_001_tally.txt
> 59
> 
> Looks to me like voting for a resolution, no matter what it
> says, rather than making two opposing views seek compromise.

I think the sentiment that produced this voting pattern was a desire
not to see any more emails about the GFDL.  For example, Anthony Towns
wrote [1]:

  I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion
  that it ought to be voted above "Further Discussion"

Essentially, voter fatigue has beaten out Further Discussion.  I would
consider that a flaw in the voting method, though not all may agree.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00415.html