Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Don Armstrong wrote:
> I had always understood DFSG §2 to be read in exactly the way the
> proposal clarifies its meaning. However, the original proposal made
> it clear to me that this was not a universal understanding, and it
> fell to me (or someone else) to draft language to offer another
> interpretation of our understanding of DFSG §2.
OK. I see your point (as you probably guess, I also understand DFSG#2
and the social contract to have the same meaning as that given in the
proposal). I guess what I need is to ask an opponent of GR 2006/004 to
explain why the proposal is *not* a no-op! Any takers?
> If you agree with the proposal being a no-op (that is, it says what
> you felt DFSG §2 always said), then you are in agreement with the
> entire point of the proposal.
True. But there's kind of a weird issue here. Since I feel the
proposal is a no-op, I have no reason to prefer a "yes" vote over a
"further discussion" vote, or vice versa, based on the proposal text
alone. My only reasons to vote one way or the other are to make a
statement (vote "further discussion" because I'm grumpy about the
endless arguments or vote "yes" because I think Don Armstrong is cool
:-) ), or based on consideration of what other people will do as a
result of the vote outcome (vote "further discussion" because one of the
RMs feels a yes vote will delay Etch by a year, or vote "yes" because it
would apparently convince said RM that your viewpoint, and mine, of
DFSG#2 is the accepted one).
Remembering what happened after the supposedly no-op GR 2004/003, I'm
tempted to follow the path having the least danger of adverse reactions
from others, and therefore to vote "further discussion" since a yes vote
and a further discussion vote, IMO, are logically equivalent. Jacobo
Tarrío Barreiro sums up my feelings perfectly:
http://raw-output.org/20061002/status-quo-ante-bellum
Do you have an argument to persuade me otherwise?
> Finally, as far as etch is concerned, it is my understanding that we
> MUST pass an exception to DFSG §2 in order to do what we are
> currently doing; this proposal just makes it abundantly clear that
> that is the case.
Again, I agree with you. I'm very interested in hearing why those who
oppose the proposal think differently.
best regards,
--
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Reply to: