Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:14:40 -0500, Theodore Ts'o <email@example.com> said:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
>> General Resolution: Status of the non-free section Text: The actual
>> text of the GR is:
>> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
>> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
>> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the
>> non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed.
>> Since this modifies the Social Contract, thsi requires a 3:1
>> majority to pass.
>> Amendment Anthony Towns [firstname.lastname@example.org] Amendment Text The actual
>> text of the amendment is: Propose that the Debian project resolve
>> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
>> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines,
>> we reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free
>> areas in our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to
>> providing the use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking
>> system and mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free
>> software packages.
> Umm.... this is very confusing. Are we expected to cast votes for
> both the amendment and the general resolution at the same time?
> Whether or not the Amendment carries is going to make an extreme and
> material different as to how I would vote on the General Resolution,
Umm, why? Vote for the amendment over the default option and
the original resolution, if that is how you feel.
> since the Amendmend effectively changes the sense of the Resolution
> by 180 degrees.
Quite. So only one of the two may win.
> If we are forced to cast both votes at the same time, someone who
> wants to keep non-free and who votes aye to both the Amendment and
> the Resolution may find themselves inadvertently voting to ditch
I suggest you read up on our voting mechanisms. To that
hypothetical person, I would say vote the original proposal below the
default, and the amendment above the default optio.
> non-free. On the flip side, someone who wants to jettison non-free
> could vote aye to the Resolution and nay to the amendment, could if
> the amendment carries, inadvertently end up voting to keep non-free,
> which would not be their intent.
This really demonstrates a profound ignorance of our voting
process; please read up on the new mechanisms at
We delayed this vote for nearly four years so that we could
get a voting process that can handle exactly this conundrum.
> As someone who would like to see non-free be kept, I suppose the
> valid strategy, assume we are forced to vote on both the amendment
> and the resolution at the same time, would be vote "nay" to the
> resolution, and "aye" to the amendment, since if the resolution
> fails, the status quo would prevail, and the votes on the amendment
> could be used to provide a moral mandate one way or another about
> how DD's feel on this issue.
This is wrong. The amendment can succed on its own, even if
the resolution falls.
> This seems like a fairly convulting situation, however, and being
> forced to vote on both seems to require a certain amount of gaming
> one's vote, which is in my opinion, undesirable.
Wrong again. Would you please read up on condortcet before
continuing with this rant?
cause when love is gone, there's always justice. and when justice is
gone, there's always force. and when force is gone, there's always
mom. laurie anderson
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C