Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:09:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The Debian Project,
> 
> > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
> > > distributes,
> 
> > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
> > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
> > > serve our goals or the interests of our users,
> 
> > > hereby resolves:
> 
> > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> > >    General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> > >    (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
> > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian
> > >    Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without
> > >    further cause for deliberation.
> 
> > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal,
> > so that the entire proposal now reads:
> 
> >    that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> >    General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> >    (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded.
> 
> I do, of course, reject this amendment. :)

the problem with your (unamended) proposal is that it is unprincipled and
unethical.  my amendment fixes that.

either the recently changed wording of the SC is good & correct, in which 
case the principled thing to do is to follow it without exception, or it
is not correct, in which case it should be discarded.

keeping it yet overriding it, however temporarily, for mere convenience is a
decidedly unprincipled action.

the only principled choices are to either follow the current SC as is (with ALL
of the consequences, desirable AND undesirable) or to reject it outright.

in other words, either we have principles or we don't.  having "principles"
that we can ignore at our convenience is morally bankrupt.
 

while the Knights Lunar like to pretend that they are Holier Than Stallman,
they have little understanding of ethics or principles, and have no regard for
the consequences of their ill-considered jihad.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"