Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > > preferences appropriately?
> >
> > Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to
> > do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means
> > that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen.
>
> It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of
> ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free,
> non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that
> difficult.
Yeah, but then you have to split social contract into social contract
small changes, or social contract small change + hidden removal of
non-free.
Also, the majority is not the same. For example, if a majority of DDs
want to can non-free, i guess some oponents of the social contract
change would feel compeled to vote for it.
> > > I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a
> > > hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things.
> >
> > What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without
> > clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free.
>
> The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
> turn out.
Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
another year or so ?
Something needs to happen now, and the non-free issue is the one we need
to decide over.
> > Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will
> > hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let
> > people vote accrodying to this decision.
>
> Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do
> so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate
> in the poll?
Yep, sure, i guess the dishonest among us will vote let's keep non-free
now, and then after the GR pass, remove it.
Would not work though, since if we vote to keep non-free, there is no
point in voting the non-cosmetic social contract changes.
> > Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the
> > social contract later.
>
> That's another option which doesn't require a poll.
Ok, i will propose it then, if someone helps me cleaning up the draft
proposal who speaks better english than me, and who writes better in
general.
> > But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote.
>
> Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this
> since 2000 :-)
But quarreling like fish merchant here won't help. The idea is to
discipline ourself enough to start the flamage and discussion once the
vote has been submitted, not like we do now.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
> -- John
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: