On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:43:17PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > [This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people > aren't confused] Yeah, right. > 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. What? <checks> Well, OK. Missed part 2 of that proposal. Sorry; my bad. The rest of what I said stands, though; I think that modifying the SC to add an apology is one bridge too far. The Social Contract is a statement of principles; it should not disvalidate itself. If we cannot follow up on our principles because they happen to conflict[0], then that is a problem; but an explanation of that fact does not belong in that very statement of principles (it should be "somewhere", but not in the SC). Therefore, I resent the idea that option three would be a "refined version" of option one and two. [0] Yes, they conflict. I am aware of your opinion that "having free software" and "doing what's best for our users" can not conflict; however, I disagree. Let me explain: * "Having a distribution that consists entirely of free software" is, indeed, good for our users. Many of our users depend on Debian being entirely free software; changing that without notice wouldn't be nice, so it's better to release only when the distribution is fully free. * "Having a distribution which actually releases within a decent period after the previous release" is also good for our users. Our users are not served best by having horribly outdated software in our latest stable release; the world changes, and so do software requirements. For some of our users (and their number increases every day as the "woody" release gets older), stable is already completely useless. These two are, at this very moment, in conflict. To get a distribution which is best according to the first argument, we would need to postpone the release. To get a distribution which is best according to the second argument, we would need to release ASAP. The question, however, is not what is "good" for our users (both courses of action are, depending on the POV); the question is what's "best" for our users. To answer that question, we have to decide how bad it is that the software in "woody" is outdated. Some people, including you, have the opinion that it is not so bad that we should release sooner rather than later; others, including me and, if I'm not mistaken, Andreas Barth, have the opinion that the problem with woody being outdated has now reached the point where it's more of a problem than the problem where some parts of a stable distribution are non-free. Parts which, I should note, have not been considered as "parts that should be free" in /any/ previous release. > > > 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. I don't see how. OK, granted, it does not literally say that the previous GR is reaffirmed. However, I don't think that anyone who would want such a transition plan would want to get rid of the previous GR. In practice, if this option is accepted, the previous GR will be accepted as well. The transition plan does, in practice, also lay out when the changes to the SC made by the previous GR will be active: when sarge gets out the door. To quote the proposed transition plan: In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to security releases and point releases as well. > > > 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. Not even remotely. You're pretending to offer unbiased voting advice, which is an outright lie; you are biased towards option 6. > > 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), With that phrase, I was referring to the discussion that put the options on the ballot in the first place, not to any discussion that tried to remove some (I didn't know (or, at least, don't recall) there had been one; references are welcome) > 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. In that case, wouldn't it have been appropriate to ask for approval from all parties involved, instead of just coming up with something, and posting that without prior feedback? > > 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. Yes, but your analysis is biased. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but you should either have asked for feedback from people advocating other opinions, or not have mentioned any of the options other than those you would like to advocate. Pretending to give unbiased advice which isn't is worse than lying in my world view. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature