Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep
> > non-free as far as I can remember. The amendment that passed was
> > a no-op that basically said that the status quo remains.
>
> So, you simply discount the 100 or 1000s of email that preceded that vote, and
> all the argumentation against removing non-free, how convenient.
I don't see what that has to do with the simple fact of what the vote
was about and how it turned out.
> The status quo in our voting system would have been none-of-the-above, so there
> was clearly a choice to keep non-free, if i remember well.
That choice didn't express a prohibition on removing it, it was just an
effort to keep the question to arising again in the short term. It was
pretty successful at that.
> > Not only that, but there were people that voted to abolish non-free, so
> > to state that "we all voted to keep it" is erroneous.
>
> We did all vote, and the result of that vote was to keep non-free, and the
Well, that's not correct either. A minority of developers voted, if I
remember correctly. Some 350 or so.
But when you said "we all voted to keep it", that is incorrect. The
vote was not unanimous. I believe that about a third of those voting
wanted to remove it.
> result of the vote are thus binding on the debian project as a whole (until
> the next GR about this topic that is).
I'm not saying that the vote was invalid or anything. All I'm saying is
that it wasn't unanimous as you had said. There was disagreement at the
time.
-- John
Reply to: