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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:19:22PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> > > > > Resolution.
> > > > 
> > > > Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the
> > > > conceptual changes and vote on two orthogonal proposals?
> > > > 
> > > > Apart from this, I think your proposal looks good.
> > > Thanks for your support, but I did consider what you propose, and I
> > > disagree.
> > > I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means
> > > of declaring two winners.  It is easy for me to imagine that both
> > > proposals would pass by the required majority, but the editorial-only
> > > one would be the Condorcet winner because it would garner more votes
> > > (presumably because it would be less controversial).
> > Just make it two separate votes. One for the editorial changes, which
> > everyone should agree one mostly, and then the second about the
> > conceptual changes. 
> > Or maybe a single vote with an option with only the editorial changes,
> > and another with the conceptual changes + the editorial changes.
> Actually, I disagree with one of the editorial changes (on-line ->
> online), but I haven't found any semantic changes in the proposal that I
> think I disagree with.  I haven't decided yet if I care about the
> editorial change enough to vote against the GR. ;P

Well, sure, but the editorial changes are mostly only cosmetic stuff,
which will not have any real influence. While the conceptual changes is
the real thing worth voting on. I don't necessarily disagree or agree
with it, but i find it dangerous to try sliping it trough like that in
the middle of a load of mostly harmless changes everyone should more or
less agree on.

The real issue here is not the editorial changes, but the tentative to
modify the social contract in order to be able to drop non-free from the
archive with only a technical comitee decision or a simple GR.

And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
confusion with a global GR like that is _NOT_ a good thing to do, so
please have two votes, or separate the minor details from the true
intentions of this GR, and don't try to hide behind the voting system to
justify this. If you don't do, at least i will propose an ammendment to
this effect, but this can only been done once you propose a formal GR,
and the seconds you got will need to be restated anyway, right ?


Sven Luther

Reply to: