Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:06:48 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
>> > Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the
>> > archive, and no longer supported by the Debian project.
>> > or
>> > Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be supported
>> > by the Debian project.
>> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the
>> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but
>> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid
>> viewpoint.
> [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> [ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free
> [ 2 ] Don't change social contract
> [ 3 ] Further Discussion
Umm, that is not quite the same thing. Consider the case where
there are 400 voters that want to punt. And suppose there is an
explicit option
[ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
[ ] Change social contract, keep non-free
[ ] Change social contract, punt on archive
[ ] Don't change social contract
[ ] Further Discussion
In your ballot, the 400 people vote:
400 x 1123
Suppose there is one person who does not want to punt; and votes:
1234
None free would be removed.
In the new ballot, it would be
400 x 55123
15523
And things would really be punted.
manoj
--
The way to avoid the imputation of impudence is not to be ashamed of
what we do, but never to do what we ought to be ashamed of. -- Tully
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: