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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the
> >> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but
> >> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid
> >> viewpoint.
> > 	[ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > 	[ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free
> > 	[ 2 ] Don't change social contract
> > 	[ 3 ] Further Discussion
> 	Umm, that is not quite the same thing. Consider the case where
>  there are 400 voters that want to punt. 

Depends who they want to punt to. If they're happy to punt to other
developers (ie, the ones that do express a preference between the first
two options), or to the DPL (the elector with a casting vote), there's
no problem.

> And suppose there is an explicit option 
>     [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
>     [ ] Change social contract, keep non-free
>     [ ] Change social contract, punt on archive

In which case it's better to say "Change social contract, allow ftpmaster
to have discretion about whether non-free remains in the archive".

Personally, I think it's a daft idea to convert an issue in the social
contract to an administrative decision.

> 	In your ballot, the 400 people vote:
>   400 x  1123
> 	Suppose there is one person who does not want to punt; and votes: 
>        1234
> 	None free would be removed.

Yes, because everyone but one person punted, so that one person gets left
holding the ball.

> 	In the new ballot, it would be
>  400 x 55123
>        15523
> 	And things would really be punted.

To a different person, who would still have to make the decision.

(And honestly, I don't think that's a plausible vote. How can you prefer
to have the social contract ammended, and non-free kept or removed at
the whim of ftpmaster; yet not find it sensible to amend the social
contract then remove non-free, nor to amend the social contract then
keep non-free? 400x12234 would have the same result and be much more

In any event, personally, I don't think there are 400 people in Debian
who don't have a preference whether we want to distribute non-free or not.


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: pgpX1VRyIQs23.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: