Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
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.
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
> > criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons" issue.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:09:58AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Only so far as "remove non-free" is an instance of "something
> requiring a SC change to perform".
Also because of the "for a wide variety of reasons", and the people have
criticised" aspects.
> > Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the "remove
> > non-free" issue.
> >
> > What does "addressed coherently" mean, given this state of things?
>
> Your editorial changes to clauses 1-4 and your substantial changes to
> clause 5 seem to be totally independent to me. The editorial changes
> to clauses 1-4 should be proposed as an amendment to the "Editorial
> changes" GR, not this one. Combining the two distinct issues into one
> makes the proposal less coherent. I think it is trying to ride
> unrelated changes through together by stealth.
The changes to clauses 2-4 are independent.
The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in perspective.
Of course, I also make a change to clause 1 to make it conform to the
recent constitutional amendment. And, I make a change to clause 1 to
make it conform to our existing practice of supporting GNU/Hurd and
[so far, to a mild degree] BSD.
If you want me to drop those from my proposal, you have to convince me
that dropping them is a good idea. Your belief that they're not related
is more, in my opinion, a matter of your focus than anything I care about.
> > 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.
>
> I'm glad you're aware of it. Why not second and amend that instead,
> for most of your changes? Reduce this amendment only to include your
> new clause five.
[1] It's not been introduced.
[2] I'm more in favor of that proposal than his other proposal, so
I have less reason to introduce an amended version.
> >>> 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.
>
> Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes:
> 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG;
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do.
> 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system;
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do.
> 3. the request for redistributors to check non-free licences;
A change in what we ask other people to do, but not a change in what
we do.
> 4. the commitment to provide infrastructure;
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do.
> 5. transition plan for non-free packages.
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do.
> While I think the introduction of the last two is laudable, the first
> seems questionable and I dislike losing the other parts.
Ok, I guess I understand that that's how you feel.
Note that, if you otherwise like my proposal or some aspect of my proposal
more than Andrew's or some aspect of Andrew's but this bothers you, you're
free to propose your own amendment which fixes the problems you see.
> > 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.
>
> Thank you for these. They have made the amendment much clearer to me
> and I hope others find them useful too. The first in particular
> highlights the unrelated nature of clause 5 changes to the others.
Even if you're totally focussed on "non-free", I think that at the very
least the change to the third sentence of section 1 is related.
In my opinion, the change to the first sentence of section 1 is also
related -- the before version didn't indicate that we were distributing
a general purpose OS. I think this is important context in understanding
dependencies, and [therefore] what non-free is not allowed to be depended
on for. Yeah, it's a really obvious change. However, it seems to me
that every new person introduces additional possibilities for missing
the obvious.
> > 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.
>
> No, it still isn't sarcasm. I was stating that people are able to,
> basically agreeing with your claim that I am able to. I made no
> suggestion that people should do it. I just noted that I would rather
> not.
Aside from your first sentence here, we're in violent agreement.
> I am almost horrified that you misinterpreted it so badly.
I think you missed a "not" when reading what I wrote.
...
--
Raul
Reply to: