[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Keep non-free

On 2004-02-24 13:25:01 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Please, let this proposal stand, as it was sufficiently seconded anyway,
and keep your politics for the discussion period. Was it not yourself
that was telling something such in another mail ?

Aren't we in the discussion period? "Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed" says the SRP.

You seem to imply that I have some magic power to stop it. As far as I know, I don't. I think the proposal may be permissible, but I wish to point out that it serves no useful purpose because:

1. It was seconded, but most seconds only quoted "the Debian project resolve that" and at least one wrote that they considered it a proposed position statement. The proposer originally opined and since claimed it amends Suffield's drop GR. If a proposal is intended as an amendment, I believe that should be clearly stated in the proposal itself. I don't think any other proposed amendment had this level of ambiguity or the great number of seconds, and I suspect they're correlated.

2. The rationale was mostly hypothetical and made claims about evidence, without giving evidence or references.

3. By reaffirming the status quo, an amendment with this form would not achieve the stated final goal of "a better outcome than further discussion" as far as I could tell. It introduces what is effectively a second "further discussion" option, which seems improper.

4. If this is a new proposal and it is voted after a Suffield drop GR, it will be inconsistent with reality. What does such a "black is grey" resolution do to Debian? If voted before, then it is null.

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: