Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
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.
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way
with a single proposal. I think it tries to mislead people who only
support it on one of these issues to support it in total. Of course,
presenting this as the "keep non-free" amendment rather than the
"different editorial changes" amendment means that such support comes
from the more polarising debate.
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.
For me, that does not seem true. You need to try to at least see
others' point of view.
I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in
the
social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.
Including claims that substantially change current positions does not
do that.
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?
I would like to see:
1. description of changes from the current social contract, with
rationale;
2. description of changes from the proposal being amended;
3. description of changes from previous versions.
However, I only asked for the first of these previously. You did post
one such rationale before, but the wording seems to have changed
since.
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.
Why have you not continued that practice? It makes it very hard for
new readers, or even just people returning after ignoring you for a
while.
I'm not sure if you're extremely difficult to please or if you're just
ignoring what I wrote.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I write.
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.
That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you should
look up the meaning of the word. Normally, I denote written sarcasm
with the common marker "(!)" or the winker like so: ;-)
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.
You admitted that you no longer make efforts to supply what you
clearly understood previously, so it cannot have been that ambiguous
when I wrote it the first time.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: