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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract



On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 04:18:19 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> It would mean people didn't want the Project compelled by its Social
> Contract to distribute non-free forever and ever.

> It wouldn't necessarily mean that the Project would think
> distributing non-free now *isn't* a good idea.

> You have accused me elsewhere on this list of treating the
> developers as dumb sheep who aren't capable of discerning when
> they're being tricked, imply that you do not share this opinion, and
> yet you think they're going to misunderstand the following?

> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely.  *This amendment does NOT
>       mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
>       anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to
>       provide a "non-free section" via a File Transfer Protocol
>       (FTP) archive specifically.  This makes it possible for us to
>       decide, in the near or distant future, to stop distributing
>       the non-free section without violating our own Social
>       Contract.

	This by itself does not matter as much as you think it does,
 since the voter has no choice here. Heck, I know that the rationale
 said that, but it does not affect my intent. So, people
 overwhelmingly voting to remove clause 5 would still mean a mandate
 for removal of non free. Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I
 could chose 

   a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive
   b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well

	then yes, we can remove clause 5, and clearly know whether or
 not there was a mandate.  Lacking this, I think people shall vote for
 the proposal on its merits, and their intentions are not limited to
 what the rationale says is proper motivation and intent.

	Lacking a clear choice made by voters, no amount of "people
 who chose this proposal believe in chaos theory" style assertions in
 the rationale carry any weight.


> Which of us is expressing the lower opinion of the electorate,
> again?

	I certainly am not. You seem to think that stating something
 in a rationale binds peoples motivations; like they were sheep to
 change their reasons for voting just because you said so in the
 rationale. 


	manoj
-- 
"I have studied many philosophers and many cats.  The wisdom of cats
is infinitely superior."-Hippolyte Taine
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: