Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC [needs 1:1]
> > > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> > > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
> > > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the
> > > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot.
>
> > Not allowed? Really? And all this time I thought that my opinion was simply
> > in a minority so small that nobody bothered making a proposal out of it! :)
>
> See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00000.html (for the
> proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri,
> Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the
> constitution), and rejected by the secretary in that form because it
> also spoke about the release interval, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00035.html
> | I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads
> | now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and
> | must needs go on another ballot, and another vote.
Hmm, yeah, the short point appeared to have gotten sidetracked by all that
verbiage, and the promise of yearly release sounds optimistic at best.
I'd second a resolution that simply said that we acknowledge that the
meaning of the first clause of the social contract, regardless of whether
we say "free according to the DFSG" or "free software" or "free monkeys",
is not set in stone and its interpretation is variable.
Another option on the same resolution would be that the interpretation
is exactly this-and-that, but with the difference that the people would
actually be voting for or against something concrete and their votes
couldn't be interpreted to mean something else than what was advertized
and what they intended.
``Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software".'' *snicker* *sigh*
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: