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.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way
> with a single proposal.
The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons" issue.
Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the "remove non-free"
issue.
What does "addressed coherently" mean, given this state of things?
> I think it tries to mislead people who only support it on one of these
> issues to support it in total.
I do not think it tries to mislead people in any such way:
I'm being quite explicit about what my proposal is.
> 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.
There's nothing preventing any of a variety of other "different editorial
changes" proposals. In fact, Andrew has proposed one, and I believe
you're aware of it.
> > 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.
That's exactly what I've been trying.
If you have some post where you've expressed your point of view, that
you think I'm ignoring, please give me a url on it.
Otherwise, I'm aware of nothing stopping you from expressing your
views now.
It may be that you have a point of view which I've not taken into account.
If I can recognize a substantial unhandled element in your POV, I'll
see what I can do about incorporating it -- though I might need to ask
further questions to gain more perspective.
But, note that I do not (can not) take every statement describing a
person's POV as a literal description of what needs to be in the Social
Contract.
> > 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.
You have yet to identify any actual change in what we do.
All you've identified is new words descrbing what we do, with hypothetical
situations that, if they represented what we do would be changed by
these new words.
New words -- which don't result in us doing anything different -- do
not seem, to me, to represent substantial changes.
Neither are wording changes that only change things which we are not
doing.
> > 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.
Ok, I'll generate these afresh. This will take a bit of time -- hopefully
I'll post them all by tomorrow, but "by tomorrow" is not a promise.
> > 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 have continued the "at the top" practice. I need to sit back and
reflect before I write up the full description.
> >> 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.
It's sarcasm because you were not seriously suggesting that everyone read
the previous proposal drafts for my change comments. That your statement
is also factual when taken literally doesn't remove that aspect of what
you wrote.
> > 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.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.
--
Raul
Reply to: