Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
Oliver Elphick <email@example.com> writes:
> I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
> for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
> Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the
> change? I am a good deal more reluctant to vote for a fundamental
> change than for a position paper.
> To express the ballot choice in such a way automatically imposes biase.
I actually agree with this more than disagree with it, but I place the
blame squarely at the feet of the person proposing this ballot option.
Multiple people asked repeatedly for clear text and never got it, and as a
result we have an option on the ballot that multiple people, myself
included, do not understand the implications of.
All the current proposal says is "your interpretation of the DFSG is
wrong." I'm happy if the project as a whole decides to say that. That's
the whole point of a GR, after all. I'm happy to change what guidelines I
enforce to the new interpretation. However, *no new interpretation has
been provided* despite multiple people asking for one. Nothing at all has
been provided except the simple assertion that our interpretation is
So... if that ballot choice passes, I have no idea what's free and what
isn't in these sorts of borderline cases. I don't know what standards to
apply, since clearly the standards I thought I was supposed to apply
aren't correct and the people who have declared them not correct have not
seen fit to provide standards to replace them. The result is, at least as
far as I'm concerned, pure confusion.
Again, the proponent was asked repeatedly to fix this and refused. So...
that's what we got on the ballot.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>