Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of
interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 ...
I refer you again to [1]. It was even voted on!
There was also considerable controversy[4] over the voting method at the
time. Ballots were also confusing and contradictory[5].
According to [2], the cause for the expiry seems to be related to
then-Secretary Benham not having enough time to process the vote at the
time. At [3], you can observe me trying to figure out why a vote wasn't
happening.
At [6], Secretary Benham announced the withdrawl of the vote due to the
reasons in [2]. My response[7] clearly shows my displeasure that a vote
was not being taken (I was somewhat excessive in my language, I think);
though in hindsight, the considerable confusion and controversy over the
vote itself may have made this a useful move.
In November, 2002, I posted a revised[8] proposal, and indicated my
intention to bring it through the GR process. New Secretary Srivastava
indicated that the 2000 proposal was not dead; merely "on hold"[9],
which, to the best of my knowledge, is still the case. I asked some
questions about it in [10], and Manoj further clarified things in [11]
and [12].
Thus, there is very substantial evidence that I attempted to move this
forward to a resultion as much as possible. This is all a matter of
public record, which you should have checked yourself before labeling me
a "fraud". It is crystal clear that you have no idea what you are
talking about on that issue.
> > 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
What exactly about the vote is a fraud and dishonest? Do you assert
that our voting mechanism is rigged? If so, you are talking to the
wrong person about that; you should be proposing a Constitutional
amendment or taking other action.
All GRs to be voted on are listed in public. Votes are listed in
public. How can it be dishonest when everybody can see for themselves
exactly what it is that is being proposed? AND they can see for
themselves all the discussion about it!
I am well aware that opinions differ. If they did not, we would not be
having these discussions. I will not, however, shrink from supporting
that which I believe is right merely because it is controversial.
> > 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.
I find it extremely disingenuous of you to say that my actions in
calling for a vote now are somehow a delaying tactic. In fact, I think
that you are deliberately misrepresenting me here.
> > 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
Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say
"non-free removal GR draft"?
> 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.
How is bringing something to a democratic vote showing disregard for
what the project actually wants? What better way is there to find out
what the project wants than holding a democratic vote? Are you afraid
that the project does not want what you do, or that your notion of what
the project wants may be proven false?
> > 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.
First of all, my personal preferences have no bearing on the merits of
any proposal, mine or otherwise. This is a classic "ad hominem" attack,
and is toally meaningless.
I will nevertheless defend my character, and point you to the narrative
above detailing exactly how much I have pushed to get this to a vote,
and thus a resolution.
Besides, I would be totally stupid if I did anything else. Right now,
we have non-free. If I want to be rid of non-free, why would I try to
prevent the very mechanism by which that can happen from occuring?
> > 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.
And now, as I mentioned yesterday, I am supporting votes on the current
proposals, as well as opposing delaying tactics such as yours. These
actions, too, are a matter of public record, and you have directly been
made aware of them already.
> > 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
Good point. It is time to vote on this.
> 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
Again, you lie.
It was not a trivial change of a dependency; there was
latex2html-specific code in there that had to be altered; the build
system was really incompatible with anything else; tex4ht did not
document ways to accomplish things that would maintain the same level of
functionality as latex2html, and I has to try to decipher a Japenese
page to figure out how to do it.
> choose hevea). Even i have been doing licencing issues fix, see :
I don't recall at the moment. I did look at both of them, but don't
remember the reasons for the choice.
> > > 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
> > *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*.
>
> Yep, four year without action. And the proposals who where made about
Totally wrong. Reread the first paragraph.
> 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
This is totally false. How on earth do you expect a GR to pass without
people noticing?! That would, at minimum, imply that quorum couldn't be
met.
> 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.
I want to go forward, too. I simply didn't think that your proposal, as
written, conformed to the guidelines in the Constitution for such
things. Rather than invest lots of time in something that cannot even
be voted on, I thought it better to tell you that up front.
Now, my word is not authoritative on the matter; if the Secretary rules
otherwise, then of course I will support bringing this to a resolution.
Moreover, I thought that your proposed GR was not really worded in such
a way that a vote would really make sense. (For instance, would people
really vote for "non-free is the epythoma of evil"? I sure wouldn't,
even though I don't know what "epythoma" means.)
It didn't seem to me to be a very well-thought-out proposal.
> 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
> flamewars.
Again, I refer you to the fact that I have taken action right now, this
week, to help advance the vote on the proposals now before us.
It seems you are just mad because I did not support your proposal.
I would point out to you that if your proposal were re-worked to be more
sensible, I could very well support it.
-- John
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200010/msg00036.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200006/msg00123.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200009/msg00007.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200010/msg00020.html
[6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200011/msg00027.html
[7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200011/msg00043.html
[8] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00005.html
[9] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00012.html
[10] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00014.html
[11] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00015.html
[12] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00013.html
[13] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00496.html
Reply to: