On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:27:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > > [ ] Drop non-free > > > [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software > > > < > Keep non-free as is (unproposed) > > Before anybody gets a bright idea, that last one doesn't need > > proposing, as it is the default option on the ballot; "Further > > discussion" is precisely this scenario. > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. "Keep non-free" means "nothing changes" and "Further discussion" means "nothing changes" (see below for conclusions). > In particular, that option is required to allow people to vote: > > [ 1 ] Keep non-free > [ 2 ] Drop non-free > [ 3 ] Further discussion > > should they prefer to keep non-free, but believe that dropping it is an > acceptable outcome if that's what most of Debian prefers. That's how I > expect to vote. > > I'd be very surprised if there weren't a quarter of Debian who would > rather keep non-free than drop it (considering that's around the > proportion who maintain non-free packages), so without the separate > option, this proposal seems impossible to pass. (I think it's so close to the line that speculating is futile, but that's not relevant) > Note that: > > 100 votes Further discussion > Drop non-free > 290 votes Drop non-free > Further Discussion > > will cause Further discussion to win; while: > > 50 votes Keep non-free > Further discussion > Drop non-free > 50 votes Keep non-free > Drop non-free > Further discussion > 290 votes Drop non-free > Keep non-free > Further discussion > > will cause Drop non-free to win. ...but this is something else. I don't see why this: > [ 1 ] Keep non-free > [ 2 ] Drop non-free > [ 3 ] Further discussion indicates what you describe. Surely it says: "I would rather maintain the status quo than drop non-free. I would rather drop non-free than maintain the status quo" And that's an intrinsically insincere vote (it is not a partial ordering of the options; transitivity is violated). If there is a genuine issue here, then it's a matter for the secretery when constructing the ballot, not a formal proposal in its own right (ie, if what you describe is accurate, then the ballot must be formed in this way regardless of whether anybody is willing to second a resolution that says "Nothing changes" or not, and that probably applies to most other ballots too). I *think* that you're describing a scenario with a large number of insincere voters, though. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature