Re: Splitting out Choice #1 from vote_004
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
> > should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
> > resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should be
> > interpreted.
>
> I stand by my opinion that calling for a vote on clarifying the
> interpretation of DFSG #2 without having the implications and
> alternatives represented on the ballot and in the discussion will
> result in a biassed outcome.
The alternatives which are germane to the proposal are those that
determine that the DFSG does not mean what the proposal says it does.
[That is, proposals on the lines of Steve's proposal.]
Proposals establishing exceptions based on the implications of what
the DFSG says seem disparate to me, although important.[1]
> The point of my last paragraph was that if your proposal is split
> off, a totally new situation is created and thus a decent period
> should be allowed to submit new amendments/proposals. Calling a vote
> within a few days after the split is officially decided and
> announced is IMO procedurally not acceptable (and AFAIK the split
> has not yet been decided, nor formally announced).
The actual format that the ballot takes is not determinxed until the
secretary makes that determination after someone calls for a vote
under A.2.1-3. Anything on v.d.o is merely advisory in this regard.
> That would be a perfect example of "tactical vote calling" as Manoj
> described at the start of this tread.
In order to actually do tactical vote calling, I would second the
other proposals, and call for a vote with a ballot containing only
them, and then later a vote containing this proposal.[2] Deciding this
proposal first puts it in a position to be overridden by the
subsequent proposals, while at the same time resolving what the DFSG
actually says.
Don Armstrong
1: To be perfectly honest, I had always assumed that this would be
handled in two separate GRs: Steve's was to clarify what the DFSG
said, and if it was clarified in a matter consistent with denying
sourceless firmware, to have a second GR dealing with an exception.
2: As could anyone else at this instant, actually... though it would
probably be a bit rude.
--
He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them
neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a
lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and
the chuck keys for electric drills.
-- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: