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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:28:26 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said: 

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or
>> seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages,
>> for example, when their initiatives demand a lot of background
>> material to appropriately inform and persuade the electorate.

> No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include "background
> material".  I have asked that the text of resolutions not be
> misleadingly edited

        Miisleadingly edited? Wittingly or unwittingly? Are you
 claiming that the intent was to mislead?

> to exclude preambulatory material which has been properly proposed
> and seconded as part of that resolution.

        Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
 resolution -- their lies the crux of the  disagreement. I have no
 objection to including the full text of a resolution. I am not going
 to add other material not part of the resolution to the web page.
 This is not subject to debate any more. (However, this might just be
 a matter of semantics, lost now under accusations of gross and
 egregious abuse of power).

> If there is a disagreement among the proposer and sponsors of a
> resolution over what the resolution *is*, then of course it's not
> ready to be put to a vote.  If OTOH it's been stated clearly by the
> proposer what text is being submitted to the developership for
> ratification, and there are no objections from the seconders, how is
> it proper for the PS to put something other than this text, or a
> direct reference to this text, on the ballot?

        People propose and second all kinds of junk. Including
 vacation notices, observations on how other people are wrong,
 personal beliefs, and all.

> That is the state that <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004>
> was in last time I looked at it; anything not preceded by a number
> had been elided, and each ballot option was prefaced by the
> prejudicial statement that "[t]he actual text of the resolution is
> as follows. Please note that this does not include preambles to the
> resolutions, [...]", implying that preambles are not part of the
> resolution and are not votable.

        I am going to reinstate that paragraph, for it is certainly
 true. If you think the truth is prejudicial, I can't help that.

> Now the page includes the full original mail body from each of the
> proposers; well, this is at least an improvement over the previous
> state of affairs in that it is no longer excluding parts of the
> proposed resolution, but it also seems Manoj is being deliberately
> perverse in claiming that Don's Burning Man [vac] notice is part of
> the resolution. :/

        That was certainly not clear before. People are seconding the
 full email, including such material. Since it is your view that the
 secretary can't decide to elide parts pf the text that has been
 properly proposed and seconded, I don't understand what you are
 crying about here.

        Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

With his mind free from the inflow of thoughts and from restlessness,
by abandoning both good and evil, an alert man knows no fear. 39
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: