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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
>  disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
>  Jackson pointed out, was the least disruptive of the lot; but the
>  voting actually went like so:
>   Option 1 defeats Option 2 by 95
>   Option 1 defeats Option 3 by 99
>   Option 1 defeats Option 4 by 162
>   Option 3 defeats Option 2 by 54
>   Option 2 defeats Option 4 by 104
>   Option 3 defeats Option 4 by 90

I think that's a hasty conclusion.  Let's recall how much time passed
between the first big flamewar on this subject and the time of the
actual vote.  I think at least three factors were at work in making
Proposal A seem like the "safe, conservative" option.

As I recall, the previous Project Secretary made an outlanding ruling,
interpreting the Constitution to mean that the Social Contract and DFSG
couldn't be amended *at all*.

Secondly, Ian Jackson, author of the Constitution, took literally years
to clarify the point, only stepping forward to set the record straight
days before the close of voting.  If he is disappointed with the
outcome, he has only himself to blame.  Students of history will know
that revisionism, if left unchallenged, doesn't take long to become

Finally, you, as proponent of Proposal A, have had a good long time to
spread the idea that it is the True and Right way to interpret the
Constitution, and have repeatedly raised the specter of half the
developers plus one simultaneously losing their minds and changing the
direction of the project.  This made it sound like the "safe bet", which
undermines your objection to my thesis.  Over the years I have attempted
to counter this with the observation that if half the developers adopt a
fundamental shift their attitudes towards the goals of the Debian
Project, we'll know it long before they get around to proposing to amend
the Social Contract -- the fabric of the project will have fundamentally
changed.  In my view, the Social Contract needs to *reflect* who we are,
not *tell us* who we are.

But your memes won, and mine lost.  I suppose congratulations are in
order.  :)

> 	Of course, this still falls in the category of the whole
>  project is out to get Branden ;-).

I realize you're joking here, but since your joke is reminiscent of
spiteful rhetoric I've heard uttered in earnest on occasion, I'll rebut
it.  :)

I could have fought a lot harder against your proposal when it actually
came up through the voting process properly.  I didn't, because I was
tired of the issue, and valued a sane and reasonably-worded amendment
more than I valued winning the meme war.  That's why I proposed many
editorial amendments to your proposal so that it would be better-formed.
As it turns out, you accepted most or all of them.  If I felt it were
pure poison, I wouldn't have done so.  (Those who are fond of thinking
of me as strident and inflexible may want to take a moment now to bulk
erase their short-term memories so that they forget that inconvenient

Anyway, to get back to the point, I think the 4.1.5 Disambiguation
vote *was* support for my "conservative" electorate theory, but I
disagree with you as to which option would have been regarded as
"conservative" by "conservative" people.  The vote results are public;
we could always *ask* people why they voted as they did...

G. Branden Robinson                |     Life is what happens to you while
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     you're busy making other plans.
branden@debian.org                 |     -- John Lennon
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: