[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR
> > that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because
> > assuming rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of
> > that option to be a strict superset of those who approve of my
> > proposal, and I would call on the Project Secretary to exercise his
> > authority to keep these two proposals on separate ballots to avoid
> > prejudicing the outcome in favor of a "watered down" option.

>         Speaking with my secretary hat on, it seems to me that options
>  3 and 4 are somewhat orthogonal -- inasmuch that it appears eminently
>  reasonable for someone to have differing opinions on these two
>  options. So people may approve of 3, and disapprove of 4: and this
>  makes me think that they do not belong on the same ballot, since they
>  are unrelated wrt to voting (though obviously addressing related
>  areas)

I agree that points 3 and 4 are potentially orthogonal, but I believe I
have the right under the constitution to ask for the project to vote on a
resolution that includes both of these points.  If someone were to bring an
amendment that eliminates point 4 while leaving the rest of the resolution
intact and unchanged, those two ballot options would have orthogonal
elements, and I would ask that they be treated on separate ballots so that
voters have the opportunity to vote on this position statement per se
without having to compete with ballot options that remove one of the axes of

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: