Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. How would you interpret a "yes" vote to the entire
text? And how would you interpret a "no" vote to the entire text?
(Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.)
There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it.
> --- start non-free removal GR draft ----
> Provided the social contract get's ammended by a 3:1 majority to let us
> act accordyingly to this vote, we will now take a decision about what we
> want to do about the non-free archive on the debian servers.
> Proposition A : Keep non-free.
> Rationale : non-free is usefull for our user who needs it, as a bridge
> for a given piece of software who may one day become non-free, and for
> other reasons. So let's keep it. (No social contract change is needed)
> Proposition B : Remove non-free.
> Rationale : non-free is the epythoma of evil, let's purge it from our
> servers :)) (well, not seriously, but you are better placed to provide a
> rationale here). (Needs a social contract change though)
> Proposition C : Remove the non-free packages case by case.
> Rationale : the non-freeness of the packages in non-free is of varying
> quality, so let's look at it case per case, and remove those that have
> no chance to ever becoming free, those that are badly maintained and
> nobody cares about and those that have a free replacement. (No social
> contract change is needed)
> Proposition D : Remove the none-free packages case by case, but
> also provide infrastructure for actively making non-free packages not
> needed anymore.
> Rationale : same as above, but we additionnally will provide guidance to
> users of non-free packages about what free alternative best suits them,
> and an infrastructure for discussing licencing changes with upstream
> and/or orienting interested developers to where they can help free the
> package or improve the alternatives. It would be the non-free
> maintainers packages responsability to manage this, on infrastructure
> provided by the debian project. (Social contract could be changed to
> mention we support users, but actively encourage people to migrate from
> non-free software to free replacements).
> Proposition E : Remove non-free, as well as any hint of non-free
> packages still hiding in main, the whole of contrib and all non-free
> packag installers.
> Rationale : after all, why show favoritism for the packages in main
> whose we were not honest enough to move into non-free, contrib is of no
> use without main, and installer of non-free stuff are of no use without
> the non-free stuff they install, and thus don't belong into debian.
> --- end non-free removal GR draft ----
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org