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

Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only
> If that were the case, why did I:
> 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later
>    nullified);

Nothing ever happened to this, so ...

> 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting
>    voted on now;

No, the vote is a fraud and being dishonest, you are only interested in
the options you propose, and fail to understand that people may have
other opinions that yours. Also the condescending tone of the people
proposing the non-free removal stuff is lamentable, and assuredly will
not help you pass that resolution.

> 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary "surveys";

Sure, instead choosing the other delaying tactic which result in
unterminable flamewars until everyone is sick of it.

> 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane
>    fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the
>    Constitution.

(arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...)

I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for
what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You
disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to
find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues.

> I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago.  Not

Yep, with total disregard of what the project actually want.

> only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this
> resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has

Yep, but you prefer stalling than having the risk of having it resolved
against your proposal.

> been the case for years.  Votes were taken (though never counted) on my
> own 2000 proposal, which -- if you were to read it -- you'll see not
> only resolved the non-free issue but also the social contract one.

Sure, but that was then, and this is now.

> > Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing
> > everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to
> > concretize anyway.
> I guess unsubscribing from -vote is too difficult for you?

Sure, sure, why should i ? Other issues may happen on -vote that
interest me, but this only proves my point. You discuss things to death,
until all your opponents have left.

> You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329.

Yeah, still work to do, how much could you (and me) have fixed in the
whole time lost in this unneeded discussion. Also, the bug you mention
is not really a technical one, just some trivial change of dependency to
remove some dependency of some non-free package. (BTW, why did you not
choose hevea). Even i have been doing licencing issues fix, see :
#224417 and #223776. And it included going for the search of a licence
lost in the DEC->Compaq->HP migration, and failing that discussing with
upstream and package the new free implementation they did consecutive to
it, which is now in a separate package. Much more constructive work that
just changing a dependency, don't you think ?

But this is significative of both our stances on this, you will remove
the functionality to accord to your ideal and actively oppose upstream
until they either yield or leave, while i prefer to work with my
upstreams with whom i have good contact. After all, what would debian be
without our upstreams ?

> > See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an
> Where have you been?  I find this incredibly ironic that people are
> telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did

Yep, four year without action. And the proposals who where made about
this lately are of such a lack of honestity, trying to push things in
without people noticing. This are the tactics of people knowing that
their proposal has no chance of succeeding openly.

> I simply have no response for that one.

I proposed to you that we go forward and try for calling a vote which
would make people vote honestly, and resolve the action, instead of
going trough under the belt tactics and hidden agendas. And instead of
agreeing to go forward, you opposed me with administrative bullshit.

> > actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few
> Oh come on, we can't discuss things untill a CFV is issued?  What kind
> of a silly rule is that?

No CFV will be issued ever if you discuss, not the wording of the
ballot, but the actual actual topic submited to vote already, which
is what has been happening here. This is not a silly rule, only
observation of what is going on. And you keeping speaking in the wind
will not help you there.

> > ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and
> > dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately.
> [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008

Sure, but there too, the discussion, instead of resolving this issue
died in interminable flamewars, and was stopped by a certain number of
other considerations which are not resolved. Now is the oportunity to go
ahead, but by your thickheadness, you are just stopping any chance of
that happening, in order to continue whalowing in interminable


Sven Luther

Reply to: