Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:33:35PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Then your amendment should be to that proposal rather than the remove
> non-free GR, surely?
That doesn't follow.
I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue. More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide variety
of reasons" class of issues.
>From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
phrased.
> > "GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
> > developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.
>
> Indeed it does not. I think it means we should work to free or replace
> them.
However, the current social contract is ambiguous enough that that
interpretation could be understood as being what it intends.
> >>> I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few
> >>> >
> >>> changes should be necessary. [...]
> >> This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as
> >> claiming
> >> non-free meets some DFSG.
> > That's a claim, not a practice.
>
> So why is it in there?
I already answered that:
I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in the
social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.
> > If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be
> > packages
> > in non-free which that claim would require be removed.
> >
> > To my knowledge there are no such packages.
>
> At present. Maybe someone can present a pathological case.
This isn't very likely.
Even if someone could, I think we'd have grounds for removing it from
non-free even under the current social contract.
> >> I think you have misrepresented it.
> >
> > Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.
> >
> > I don't think there are any.
>
> I was referring to your assertion that the amendment reflects current
> practice.
So was I.
> >> Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted
> >> many
> >> subtle variations on it without even a changelog.
> >
> > Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.
>
> The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what it
> changes from the current version.
I don't know what you're talking about, here.
Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?
> > You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and,
> > frankly,
>
> I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not
> seem to have acted upon it.
You're referring to
"It would have been helpful to describe your changes."
in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01157.html?
I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple draft's
around that time. I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
that draft.
I'm not sure if you're extremely difficult to please or if you're just
ignoring what I wrote.
> > I don't see that it's all that significant. If you really want to
> > know what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's
> > are still available and all the drafts have notes on what changes
> > were made in them.
>
> Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at
> source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.
Oh, cute, sarcasm.
Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs again.
If what you want really is a changelog, well, I guess I'll write
a changelog. This would be a matter of extracting change-description
comments from my earlier emails. But I'm not going to do it this second
-- I've got some other things I need to deal with first.
--
Raul
Reply to: