Re: Editorial changes to the Social Contract
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>>>On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
>>>> The only people it made happy are extremists.
> Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
> modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming
Yes, I think it is an extreme interpretation of the SC.
> majority that voted for the proposal are all .... extremeists? As
> well as the people who did not vote to revert the proposal in a later
> What a wonderful world you live in.
Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
It will surely not improve Debian freedom but bring a new burden for
maintainers who will have to repackage upstream tarballs because some
people have an fundamentalist interpretation of the SC.
>>>> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
>>>> Also, I can't see a definition of what Software is. I've not seen
>>>> any definition going beyond that (of wordnet)
> ,----[ From Wikipedia: ]
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware
> | was first proposed by Alan Turing in an essay.
There is no such definition at debian.org either. Where on our web site
can we find what software means for Debian? Maybe I missed it?
>>>> That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
>>>> counts almost 1000 developers
> Let us examine your thesis in more detail.
> constitution: 86 out of 357 24.08963%
> logo license: 107 out of 497 21.52917%
> New logo: 143 out of 509 28.09430%
> Condorcet: 160 out of 804 19.90049%
> Section 4.1.5: 254 out of 928 27.37068%
> non-free section: 491 out of 908 54.07488%
> Editorial: 216 out of 911 23.71020%
> Release Sarge: 415 out of 909 45.65456%
> Declassify mail: 305 out of 967 31.54084%
> By no means does the Editorial changes vote stand out as
> having low turnout; we generally get 20-30% turnout, unless the issue
> is seen as a hot button one a priori. Now, the vote announcement was
> sent to d-d-a no less than 4 times. It is on a mailing list meant to
> be read by every developer. The mail said it was modifying the
> SC. What would you call people who did not bother to read that email,
> and chose not to exercise their right to vote?
I said the vote is valid but you cannot draw conclusions. Nothing more.
> If people think the quorum requirements are too low, I would
> not be averse to raising K and Q to be higher than their current
I indeed think the quorum is too low.
>>>> and considering that many pros are convinced they have been
> I see. If you are saying that they voted on the GR, but felt
> deceived by title "editorial changes", then, in essence, they voted
> on a GR that changes a foundation document, where the full text of
> the GR was available on Debian's web site, and had been sent to their
> mail box no less than 4 times, and they call not reading the actual
> text "being deceived"? I would label it as gross dereliction of duty
> as a Debian developer exercising their franchise, Sloth,
> incompetence, or illiteracy.
No, people suddenly decided that software was "any bits in Debian" and
it opened a door to their interpretation. This is a deception.
My definition is still computer programs and their documentation.