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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:59:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > And Branden, i find that trying to induce your fellow developers in
> > > > confusion with a global GR like that
> > > 
> > > Why are you accusing me of this?  I've explained why I feel as I do.  Do
> > > you suspect me of insincerity?
> > 
> > Well, i will not go and try to guess what your real intentions are or
> > something such,
> You just did.

Ok, let's start again ...

The idea that you are acting insincerily has indeed crossed my mind,
especially after i read your proposal, and the discussion which
followed. You were also quite prompt at rejecting the possibility to
separate the section 5 removal and putting as reason that the current
voting scheme allows for insincere voting. But then, maybe i
misinterpret, or maybe you do it inconciously or i don't know, but fact
is that that is how your GR proposal can be interpreted.

Also, keep in mind that i am no native english speaker, and that in
writing this and the precedent mail, i have repetedly used, not the word
i would have in french, but the one available to my english vocabulary.

> > i was just pointing out the real problem with your
> > GR, and the way it will be felt by many who look at it a bit.
> "The real problem", eh?  Your certainly seem to be quite confident in
> your assessment of other people's opinions.

Why are we having this change ? Is the 3 series of votes we are having
not done because some year or so ago there was a GR to remove non-free ?

> > That said, i still feel it is clumsy and confusion inducing to present
> > the thing like it is today, and i think it would be preferable to hold
> > the discussion about what we really want to do with non-free before
> > holding a vote with (unvoluntarily maybe) hidden consequences.
> That's not my goal.

Ok, then you are sincere about it, but this is how your GR can be
interpreted, and you resisting the proposal of splitting it only makes
things worse.

> > So, what is the plan, do we want to drop non-free from the archive, or
> > not. And what will be the consequence of dropping (or keeping) non-free ?
> That's a separate discussion.  Please start it under a different thread.
> I don't want it cluttering my RFD.

But is a direct consequence of your proposal, but ok, i will start a
separate discussion.

> [...]
> > This is the real question, the rest is just a tentative to hide this
> > discussion,
> Bullshit.  You just said "i will not go and try to guess what your real
> intentions are", and here you go doing it again.

Well, this is my perception on what will happen here.

> > and make the future decision on this easier to pass trough,
> > which will maybe take people by surprise later on if you tell them "ok
> > we have these load nice editorial changes that seem reasonable and we
> > ask you to vote on, oh, and BTW, we are also going to drop section 5 of
> > the Social Contract".
> That's a flagrant distortion of my proposed GR.  I said point-blank from
> the first message what the potential consequences of dropping SC #5
> were.  My propsed GR makes a decision to drop non-free *possible*
> without violating the Social Contract; it in no way directs us to do so.

Yep, it makes it more possible, going down from a 3:1 majority
requirement to a simple majority or simple decision of the ftp-masters.

> > So i would propose that we don't put together the discussion about the
> > editorial and other changes, and the non-free issue.
> No, instead you want to "put together" the discussion of my RFD with the
> pros and cons of actually dropping non-free, which is not part of my
> proposed GR.  I don't want that shit cluttering up my GR.  Discuss it
> another thread, preferably on debian-project.  Until you have some GR
> text to propose, this list (debian-vote) is inappropriate.

Sure, you are closing the discussion again. Have no fear, i will be
proposing a GR, but i fear that trying to refuse the discussion of the
non-free issue is not going to help transparence on the motives behind
your GR (if any, etc ...).

> > Better do it cleanly and openly than risk later accusations of
> > machiavelism, secret cabal and black helicopter squads :))
> Oh, I'm pretty confident now that you'll accuse me of these things.

Oh, come one, we are a community, and i believe that despite our
bickering, we are one friendly terms, and between friends a gentle stab
like this one is supposed to bring a smile and nothing more.

> We've already seen that the commitments you make at the beginning of an
> email ("i will not go and try to guess what your real intentions are")
> are forgotten by the end ("the rest is just a tentative to hide this
> discussion").

I have taken back my first parargaph, and the second sentence you site
may be a clumsy way of putting how i (and probably others) are
interpreting your proposal. Please take in mind the language barrier and
also that i don't have your's or Manoj's subtle mastery of the english
tongue and rethoric, and don't try to go away from the semantic point i
am making here, but focusing only on the syntax of my mail. You
understand perfectly what i want.

> I suppose it's the price I have to pay for not doing things the way you
> want them done, and for caring more about the text of the Social
> Contract than the outcome of a putative vote to drop non-free.

Sure, sure. I expressed a genuine concern, and you are trying all your
possible to refute it and don't let the discussion open on this topic.

> As with your insistence that people privately mail you things you might
> be interested in instead of hiding them away on public mailing lists,
> you presume to dictate how others will serve your needs.

What has that to do with anything ? Or is that another tentative to
discredit me in order to not have to consider my arguments ?

BTW, i send a mail about the driver SDK stuff to debian-x, with a call
for help and a question to you at the end.

> If you don't care about my proposed GR, then kindly refrain from
> discussing it.  If you want to argue about the pros and cons of dropping
> non-free, do so on -project where such discussions belong.

Sure, sure, but you are not being straightforward, the non-free issue is
the reason behind this whole issue, and in you refusing to put things
clearly you do not help.


Sven Luther
> -- 
> G. Branden Robinson                |    If you make people think they're
> Debian GNU/Linux                   |    thinking, they'll love you; but if
> branden@debian.org                 |    you really make them think, they'll
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    hate you.            -- Don Marquis

Reply to: