Re: Splitting out Choice #1 from vote_004
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 05:11, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot
> > containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1]
> > [The Secretary, of course, can override this suggested ballot.]
> I strongly object to separating this proposal out and calling for a vote
> without any alternative proposals or amendments, for the foolowing reasons:
I agree with Don. If this proposal is going to go to a vote, it should go
to a vote separately from the votes about exceptions, so that we can get a
clear answer to the exception question without the outcome being tainted by
either voter confusion leading to strategic voting, or orthogonal statements
that are widely supported by the community but which tell us nothing about
what we should do for etch.
> 2) Without any alternatives, a vote on this proposal will be based purely on
> theory and ideals, without any discussion on the practical implications,
> for example on the usability of the Debian installation system for users
> with hardware that depends on sourceless firmware.
> 3) If the proposal is voted on on it's own, it is my belief that the vote
> will be heavily biassed towards accepting it. The reason for this is that
> for developers who have not followed the discussion on d-vote, this
> proposal will seem fairly innocent and the ideals it promotes are noble.
> Without a counterweight that shows the practical implications people will
> be inclined to support it without thoinking to much about it.
Neither of which matter, because having a vote on Don's proposal does not,
procedurally speaking, prevent or delay us from moving forward with the
(IMHO more important) vote on the question of an exception for etch.
--
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/
Reply to: