On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Consider the "amendment" (in name only), > Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to > produce a distribution." Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or replace the text of the resolution with that? Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be treated differently to: [ ] Remove non-free? [ ] Don't change [ ] Further discussion ? > If people vote sincerely (i.e., they vote in accordance with how much > they truly agree with each ballot option), this particular option would > stand a good chance of beating out *any* other option it was put up > against before the developership. That might be reasonable if the vote were: [ ] Remove non-free and don't continue producing a distribution [ ] Continue producing a distribution [ ] Further discussion But it's not. > And the Project Secretary has indicated he would use his Constitutional > power to prevent orthogonal ballot options from being voted on together, > to thwart any such attempts to subvert the system. Which reduces the > scope of this vulnerability to "How you, the Project Secretary, and four > of your friends can kill any GR." :) Options that say nothing other than "We'll keep doing what we've always done", whether that be "maintaining a distribution" or "supporting i386" are just explicit "status quo" options by another name. There's nothing interesting here. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgpzBUaWoT4Im.pgp
Description: PGP signature