Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:04:02AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:19:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 12:43:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Assume you had the same intentions I described above: that you'd try as
> > > hard as possible to get a vote on the issue done, and then try as hard
> > > as you could to make sure the result of that vote was effected. How
> > > would you answer your question?
> >
> > i'd answer it honestly and directly because not doing so would be an
> > attempt to deceive the electorate.
> >
> > in my case, i would answer "No" and follow it up with the comment that
> > "i would do whatever i could to ensure that non-free is not removed from
> > debian's archives".
>
> That wasn't the question.
you're right. it wan't exactly the question. thank you for pointing out
the bleeding obvious. i'm sure that we have all benefitted from your
selfless dedication and vigilance.
> > if i happened to be in favour of removing non-free then i'd answer "Yes"
> > and optionally follow it up with comments on what i intended to do about
> > it.
>
> That wasn't the question either.
this one WAS the question.
> > if i didn't care, then i'd say "No" and optionally point out that
> > developers can make whatever proposals they like whenever they like.
>
> Nor was that -- it's a position of not caring about the proposals,
> rather than wanting to see one voted on and implemented.
you're making the mistake of pretending that no-one has any agenda or
barrow to push with regard to the non-free issue.
> Why are you evading Anthony's question? It looked pretty clear to me,
> he asked how you would answer if you had the particular intention he
> described. Not how you would answer in a host of other cases.
why are you not paying attention?
i answered his question AND added explanatory notes which clarified my
point.
which, if you will recall, is *EXACTLY* what i asked branden to do.
see, it's easy.
given that the question was a "hypothetical" and not a real inquiry
about my intentions, i see no problem with responding in a manner which
addresses all the significant hypothetical alternatives.
i chose to put my actual response first because i could not stomach the
idea of writing something in favour of dumping non-free. i find the idea
to be repulsive because it perverts the intent of the social contract
and DFSG I helped to write.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
Reply to: