Re: Proposed ballot for the GR: Deciding on the effect of GR 2004_003
On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:42:07 -0400, Duncan Findlay <email@example.com> said:
> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 06:03:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:09:01 +0200, Wouter Verhelst
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:27:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On 15 May 2004 21:11:02 +0100, Henning Makholm
>> >> <email@example.com> said:
>> >> > The full texts of the proposals being voted on can be found
>> >> > on
>> >> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
>> >> > They have been been omitted here due to their (combined)
>> >> > length. Please go to the above URL and read the actual
>> >> > proposals before voting.
>> >> Why do developers have to be told this?
> In theory, they don't. In theory, the options on the ballot are
> self-explanatory, and developers should know where to find more
> information. However, in practice, it is clear that developers often
> don't take care to inform themselves adequately before voting (how
> do you think we got in this mess in the first place?)
>> > Let me turn the question around. Is there any harm in doing this?
> Excuse me. What??!!?!??
I see. Perhaps you can't read -- which kinda explains your
> There is harm in reminding developers how to inform themselves
> before voting??? You claim to want an "informed electorate" yet you
> object to making it more obvious how to inform themselves?
Shall I tell them to breathe in, breathe out, too? Or to
make sure they eat? Or remind them they should generally sleep,
perhaps once every 24 hours as well?
>> > Apart from that, yes, I think developers have to be told. Their
>> > curiosity has to be tickled, to avoid that people who aren't
>> > really interested just say "oh, postponing doesn't sound really
>> > good, because I want to release now. Let's not postpone." Having
>> > more
>> The point of this exercise is not to count as many uninformed hands
>> as possible. The point is to get a measure of a reasoned decision
>> from an informed electorate -- I can use srand to generate random
>> votes quite easily.
> So, what you are saying is that in order to have more informed
> votes, we should make it less clear to voters how to become
> informed. That's nonsense. Instead of getting more informed voters,
> you will get more people voting based on the one line summaries
If there are people who find this less clear:
The details of the general resolution can be found at:
Perhaps they should consider resigning.
> Furthermore, this may be a bias against new developers who are a
> little unfamiliar with the way votes work. Are you trying to say
> that their opinion is irrelevant? That they shouldn't get a vote?
If they are not competent enough to follow the instructions
above, hell yes.
>> > information is a good thing; and while I could understand
>> > reasoning for not wanting the full rationales in this mail, I
>> > second that the ballot should either contain those full
>> > rationales, or verbosely say it doesn't.
>> I am not sure I want the input from people who can't immediately
>> determine that the actual contents of the GR were not on the
>> ballot. Debian is not about mindless participation; we are trying,
>> after all, to create the best possible distribution; and GR's
>> represent the most significant collective decisions we make as a
>> body. I am not sure that spoon feeding people and coaxing them,
>> like pup[pies, tocome to the polling station is the best thing to
> As project Secretary, you are obliged to take into account the will
> of _all_ Debian developers, regardless of how competent *you* feel
> they are. In my eyes, statements like this undermine your
> suitability to be Secretary.
Bullshit. I am obligated to follow the constitution, and
decide, as do all developers, what is best for the
project. Pampering people who do not take time to do due diligence
before voting is not something I plan on doing.
> It certainly isn't unlikely that a (fully competent) developer, a
> little pressed for time, misses the link and votes based on the
> summaries rather than the full proposals. Deliberately making the
What fucking summaries? You really think that a 40 char title
is a bloody summary of a GR proposal? And you would vote on
something compressed into 40 chars? The mind boggles.
> link less visible is similar to an attempt to mislead voters into
> thinking they are voting for something different than they really
> are. (Sound familiar anyone?)
Yes. Sounds like we are getting a lot of incompetent. lazy
people itching to blame everyone else for their lack of due
You need more time; and you probably always will.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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