Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-22 13:35:09 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in
perspective.
Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR
proposal.
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.
I want you to split this into editorial and policy changes and stop
trying to get both through in one vote.
[2] I'm more in favor of that proposal than his other proposal, so
I have less reason to introduce an amended version.
I think this is the dominant reason, as the other is paper-thin. You
are trying to increase support for your objection by combining it with
other desirable changes, some of which also appear in Andrew's
editorial GR proposal.
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.
You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking
you a question, which you did not answer.
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.
I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and
introducing more tension within the social contract.
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.
Fine, but what is your reason to stop making that request?
4. the commitment to provide infrastructure;
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
do.
It makes it simpler to change in the future.
5. transition plan for non-free packages.
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
do.
I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy.
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.
I am reluctant to play amendment stacking until I am sure you cannot
be convinced to do the honourable thing and restrict yourself to
clause 5 in this amendment. Please stop trying to alter clauses 1-4 in
this amendment.
I am almost horrified that you misinterpreted it so badly.
I think you missed a "not" when reading what I wrote.
I think you miss much more than that when reading what I write, but I
don't normally make vague statements about it.
--
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: