Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in
> > perspective.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:02:25PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR
> proposal.
Why?
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
> > 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.
Why?
I understand that you want me to. That's not sufficient reason for
me to make that change.
Note also that you are also allowed to make proposals.
> > [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.
More generally, this is the philosophy of choosing the best option.
And even if you stomp your foot, I'm proposing the option I want to
see win.
> >> 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.
You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is
not testable.
I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim
false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief.
> >> 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.
And what is this "substantial change"?
> >> 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?
I made the statement more generic.
A wide variety of people -- not just CD manufacturers -- might have
problems with distributing non-free. The underlying caution is still
present, it's just not narrow.
> >> 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.
Some changes yes, some changes no.
> >> 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.
That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal.
> >> 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 disagree that this is "the honourable thing".
I think that splitting this into multiple elections is a big mistake.
I don't think that making a mistake simply because someone else is making
it is a good thing.
--
Raul
Reply to: