Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:56:52PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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:
You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
seems good to have a final ballot which would look like it :
[ ] let's remove section 5 from the SC and non-free from the archive.
(Assufield's proposal, needs 3:1 supermajority)
[ ] let's keep non-free and the status quo, not changing the SC.
(aj's proposal, need a simple majority)
[ ] Further discussion.
(default option)
Seems nice to me. Alternatively, we can muddy the water with a 3:1
majority esthetical changes to the SC, but this can also happen later.
> 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.
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote. If indeed there is such a problem, i doubt the seconds will
have problems in signing the corrected version.
> 2. The rationale was mostly hypothetical and made claims about
> evidence, without giving evidence or references.
Yeah, whatever, you have no problem in doing the same yourself, so
please ...
> 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.
No, it will mean that the majority of the project expressed that the
status quo is ok, and wants to keep non-free, and please don't come
again with this in the near future. This is quite different from
non-free.
> 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.
blah blah blah.
Please, let's vote on this, and don't come now with this kind of things.
It is clear that aj intented this proposal to figure on the same ballot
(and i think he intent for the esthetic changes to appear on a separate
ballot).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: