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

Re: Logo swap vote is bogus

> Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> > My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
> > discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
> If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to
> wonder just what you're trying to pull here.  (To be kind, I'll assume
> that this is just hyperbole.)

OK, show me any discussion in the archives (URL's please) ---- I've looked, 
and didn't find any.

The only replies to the proposal mail were ``seconded'' type responses, with 
no attempt to show a justification for the view.

It seems that at least one person that replied to my start of this thread, 
freely admits that they are in favour of this vote because they see it as a 
way of overturning the ``Dual License'' vote, so perhaps if the seconders had 
said something like:

  seconded, because I think we should only have one logo, and swapping
  them will allow the bottle logo to sink without trace.

Then I might agree that there had been some discussion.  We might also have 
decided the issue by simply discussing it.  If a vote had actually been 
needed, it might actually have been worded in order to decide the real issue, 
and not some tangential issue on which people are tempted to vote tactically.

The only discussion that I'm aware of was a very brief exchange between me and 
Branden, where I suggested that the question was too narrow.  Perhaps I should 
have repeated my mail when Branden repeated his, since the threads got lost, 
but at the time I wasn't subscribed to debian-vote IIRC, and I've been a bit 
busy since.

> Pretty hard to get any seconds without a discussion.... :-)

saying ``seconded'' doesn't count as discussing an issue IMO.

Cheers, Phil.

P.S. as far as what I'm trying to pull here is concerned, I'm just trying to 
make sure that some sort of discussion does actually happen, in a wide enough 
arena, so that once the vote is over we don't get too many ``When was that 
announced ?'' type complaints, which would undermine the validity of the vote.

Reply to: