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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 02:29:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > 	Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > > 	wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
> > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^
> What are the scare quotes for? Did we not already have this discussion?

No, but it obviously suits you to think so, judging by your inapposite

> > The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> > voting.  ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> > discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> > ballot is to decide whether we're accepting or rejecting *substantive*
> > amendments to the Social Contract".)
> No, that's completely wrong.
> If you have the options:
> 	[a] Remove non-free clause, editorial changes
> 	[b] Don't change the social contract, support non-free more!
> 	[c] Further Discussion

That doesn't have anything to do with the scenario I'm talking about.
[b] is not an irrelevant or cosmetic change to [a]; it's a wholesale
rejection of [a] and is squarely on point.  I'd expect it to appear on
the ballot if 6 people feel strongly enough about that position.

An apropos [b] to the discussion, which it appears you haven't actually
read before launching into your usual stream of self-righteous,
belligerent, and belittling invective, would be:

[b] Debian should retain support for the m68k architecture

(Actually, that's a bad example, as I wouldn't lay odds on m68k being
*more* popular than non-free.  :) )


[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture

That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social
Contract by a landslide -- *if people vote sincerely*.

> And I know we've already had this discussion.

No, we haven't.

> Are you going to be spreading FUD about every resolution that passes
> that you don't like?

Are you going to continue to substitute personal attacks for relevant

No, wait, I already know the answer to that.

G. Branden Robinson                |     Don't use nuclear weapons to
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     troubleshoot faults.
branden@debian.org                 |     -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: