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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 04:18:19 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> It would mean people didn't want the Project compelled by its Social
> Contract to distribute non-free forever and ever.

> It wouldn't necessarily mean that the Project would think
> distributing non-free now *isn't* a good idea.

> You have accused me elsewhere on this list of treating the
> developers as dumb sheep who aren't capable of discerning when
> they're being tricked, imply that you do not share this opinion, and
> yet you think they're going to misunderstand the following?

> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely.  *This amendment does NOT
>       mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
>       anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to
>       provide a "non-free section" via a File Transfer Protocol
>       (FTP) archive specifically.  This makes it possible for us to
>       decide, in the near or distant future, to stop distributing
>       the non-free section without violating our own Social
>       Contract.

	This by itself does not matter as much as you think it does,
 since the voter has no choice here. Heck, I know that the rationale
 said that, but it does not affect my intent. So, people
 overwhelmingly voting to remove clause 5 would still mean a mandate
 for removal of non free. Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I
 could chose 

   a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive
   b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well

	then yes, we can remove clause 5, and clearly know whether or
 not there was a mandate.  Lacking this, I think people shall vote for
 the proposal on its merits, and their intentions are not limited to
 what the rationale says is proper motivation and intent.

	Lacking a clear choice made by voters, no amount of "people
 who chose this proposal believe in chaos theory" style assertions in
 the rationale carry any weight.

> Which of us is expressing the lower opinion of the electorate,
> again?

	I certainly am not. You seem to think that stating something
 in a rationale binds peoples motivations; like they were sheep to
 change their reasons for voting just because you said so in the

"I have studied many philosophers and many cats.  The wisdom of cats
is infinitely superior."-Hippolyte Taine
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: