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

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
>  with no quorum required to propose the resolution.  

We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't enter into it at all, so it shouldn't
get mentioned here, just later when we're trying to work out which option

>  Anthony> 	"non-free is evil, change the social contract and kill it from
>  Anthony> 	 the archives"
>  Anthony> as the GR, and two amendments:
>  Anthony> 	"change the social contract, but only remove
>  Anthony> 	 unmaintained and buggy packages from non-free, not
>  Anthony> 	 kill it entirely"
>  Anthony> and
>  Anthony> 	"kill contrib as well"
>  Anthony> would it really be unreasonable to expect people to propose
>  Anthony> and second 
>  Anthony> 	"change the social contract, and remove
>  Anthony> 	 unmaintained/buggy non-free and contrib packages, so
>  Anthony> 	 that when everything has been replaced by free
>  Anthony> 	 software, the components will be empty"
>  Anthony> specifically?
> 	I think I am confused here. The final option does not seem to
>  offer all choices; do you man something like this

The intention was to have two independent options:

	1) Kill just non-free, but keep maintaining and supporting contrib;
	   versus kill both non-free and contrib

	2) Kill them by removing them from Debian entirely at the
	   conclusion of the vote; versus kill them by having stricter
	   policies about maintainership, or other indirect methods
	   (eg, making non-free packages need a couple of "sponsors"
	   as well as an active maintainer)

>   a) Kill non free
>   b) Kill non free, as well as contrib
>   c) do not kill non free, or contrib, just remove buggy packages from them
>   d) Status Quo/Further discussion
> 	If so, I agree.

Which would give you at least five options:

	0) Do nothing
	1) Original proposal (kill just non-free, immediately)
	2) Alternative 1 (kill non-free and contrib, immediately)
	3) Alternative 2 (phase out just non-free, keep contrib)
	4) Alternative 1+2 (phase out non-free and contrib)

The question being whether there's any point "implying" the last option
from the existance, and independence, of the two alternatives that've
been proposed and seconded. AIUI the current constitution and the current
draft *would* create that fifth option out of thin air.

>  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >> A.6. Concorde Vote Counting

Maybe "Condorcet Vote Counting" with "...using the Cloneproof Schwartz
Sequential Dropping Method (SSD)" somewhere underneath?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpfLhDi63e1O.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: