Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
- From: Sven Luther <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:48:54 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20031101084854.GA2499@iliana>
- In-reply-to: <20031101035926.GK29261@deadbeast.net>
- References: <20031029212528.GS11418@deadbeast.net> <20031029221045.GG6152@kalypso.caradhras.net> <20031030050438.GZ11418@deadbeast.net> <20031030094535.GB4865@iliana> <20031030201919.GD16140@tennyson.netexpress.net> <20031031074754.GA3525@iliana> <20031031172224.GF28240@deadbeast.net> <20031031233431.GA13344@iliana> <20031101035926.GK29261@deadbeast.net>
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
> > 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
> > 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
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.
> G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're
> Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if
> firstname.lastname@example.org | you really make them think, they'll
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you. -- Don Marquis