[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 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 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"?

Please check the meaning of the word "draft" in the dictionary. Sure, i
don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a
draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the
finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas
without all the needed administrativia which could be done later.

> > disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to
> > find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues.
> > > 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.

So, why did you oppose my tentative to move on on this with such
bullshit (arg, arg . .. arg no, i will let it now).

> > 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.

Well, that was what the changelog said.

> 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

Ok, sorry then, but still it did _not_ include discussion with upstream
of latex2html, did it ?

> 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.

You prefer reading japanese documentation than french one ? (Joking,
hevea has english docs i think).

> > > > 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
> Totally wrong.  Reread the first paragraph.

I have read it, i also happen to remember what happened at that time, i
even have the full mail archive of back then.

> > 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.

Remember Branden's "hide the removal of non-free among nice cosmetic
changes" GR tentative.

> > 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.

Yep, you goed formal and rejected it on the form, while i was discussing
on the sense of it (err, in french you say le fond et la forme, don't
know in english how it goes). That is where the difference is. It is
more important to vote on the idea, than to nitpick on the form.

> 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,

And, you did not read the comment about that it should not really be me
that had to give this rationale, Mmm, maybe i forgot the smiley, but it
was an open invitation for you, as non-free removal defendent to provide
the rationale.

> even though I don't know what "epythoma" means.)  

Sorry, no english native speaker, sorry.

> It didn't seem to me to be a very well-thought-out proposal.

The idea behind are strong. Do you seriously think there are other
alternatives ? If so please tell me or complete the proposal. Once we
agree on the ideas, we can find the nice word to say them, and all the
formality needed for a vote.

> > 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.

Now, you have taken action to innundate it with a flamewar of senseless
accusation going nowhere.

> It seems you are just mad because I did not support your proposal.

Nope, because you rejected it on the form of the writting, without even
having a look at the content.

> I would point out to you that if your proposal were re-worked to be more
> sensible, I could very well support it.

And, did i not especifically asked you to help me word it in the nice
formal way that is needed ? I fear the real problem here is that all
those stuff are over formalized, and we nitpick about words, instead of
looking at the ideas and try to obtain a solution that everybody will be
happy with and advance the action.

It is not by flamage that you will advance your case, as these 4 past
years have shown.


Sven Luther
> -- 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: