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

Re: Honesty in Debian (was Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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.

So, you think that the vote in itself is the important one, and that all the
discussion that leads upto it can simply be ignored ? So, you dismiss the
arguments which where made in favour of non-free in the campaign about that
vote, simply because they where not written textually in the GR itself ? How

> > 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.

So, you claim that we didn't vote to keep non-free ? Kind of revisionism.

> > > 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.

Those that did vote did vote, and the result of that vote was to keep
non-free. Those who did chose not to vote, did indeed chose so, but the result
of the vote is not less binding on them because of that.

> 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.

So, what ? We did vote, the majority of the voters did vote to keep non-free,
so the this means that we, the debian-project, did chos to keep non-free.

Please stop playing with words, will you ?

> > 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.

Sure, there is always disagreement, all i said is that the debian project
voted in a GR, and that the result of that vote was that we should keep
non-free. It is i believe quite valid to translate this above fact into the
much shorter "we voted to keep non-free" sentence, and i really don't see what
you aim to achieve by this arguing ? Playing with words to distract from the
content of my post ? nit-picking just for the fun of it ? 


Sven Luther
> -- John
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wanadoo vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. 
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.

Reply to: