[This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people aren't confused] On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC [needs 1:1] > > > [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion > > > > Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations. 2 is the > > same as 1, but without the time limit. 3 is the same as 2, but is less > > intrusive > > Modifying the social contract permanently (as opposed to temporarily > overruling it) to address temporary problems is seen as "less > intrusive"? This is factually incorrect; that is not what option 3 does. > > Option 5 may in itself be a good idea, but it is essentially > > orthogonal here, and worse, it doesn't actually answer the question of > > "what do we do about sarge?" - it just says "carry on", which says > > "non-free release" if you were expecting a non-free release and "free > > release" if you were expecting a free release. > > Actually, it says "we reaffirm the previous GR, but it won't be active > before the next release". This is pure fiction. > > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. > > Indeed. It also "happens" to be the option you proposed; and you are not > listed as seconder on one of the other options. Irrelevant. > If you think some of the options > shouldn't have been on the ballot, you should've said so before. You > didn't, AFAIK. I did, and furthermore you were aware of that (we've had this discussion before), so now you're just lying outright. The conclusion was that a summary along the lines I wrote was the appropriate way to proceed, rather than removing some of the options from the ballot. > So, leave it at that, and don't pretend to offer voting > advice when all you really do is advocate your own position. If you want > to advocate your own position, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with > that; but in that case, please say "summary: you probably want 6" > instead of this. Except that I am not doing that, but rather providing a concise analysis of the options available for people who haven't been following the discussion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature