On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote: > > > > > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free > > > [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free > > > [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-free > > > [ ] Further Discussion [...] > How does it make anything worse? It's my understanding that 'Change > Social Contract, punt on removing non-free' is the intended meaning of > the GR. Yes, though we don't have to punt for long if we collectively have the will to resolve the issue soon. > AIUI, making this explicit and adding competing alternatives can only > prejudice the original proposal if the success of that proposal > depended on an ambiguous meaning. That doesn't follow at all, as far as I can tell. As I said, one can legitimately feel that the Social Contract should be changed as proposed without holding any particular view on the removal of non-free from the FTP archive. Is the proposal to change the Social Contract and "punt" any more dependent on an ambiguous meaning if the ballot looks like this?: [ ] Change social contract, keep non-free forever [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free in 1 week [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free in 1 month [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free in 1 year [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free in 5 years [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free in 10 years [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free in 100 years Now, sure, some of those options may turn out be "clones" of each other, but will they all be? Given that only one of the above options can win, is there *no* strategic advantage to opponents of the "change social contract" proposition adding all these amendments to the ballot? I think there *is* a strategic advantage to seeing to it that the ballot looks this way, for those who have no intention of ranking any of the above options above "further discussion" -- because this way they can divide the "pro-change-Social-Contract" bloc. -- G. Branden Robinson | It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux | intellectuals to tell the truth and branden@debian.org | expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noam Chomsky
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature