Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:45:57 +0200, Marc Haber <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> The "Editorial amendments to SC" GR was not a null operation; it
>> quite clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to
>> all works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously
>> discussed on -vote at the time, with AJ (then the RM) heavily
>> involved. It was a large number of people's understanding that
>> this was what the SC originally intended, but this view was not
>> universally held, which was why the GR was necessary.
> For the "editorial changes" GR, I didn't have the time to follow the
> entire flamewar and voted in belief that the changes were indeed
> editorial because I believed in the text in the CfV. I was
> horror-stricken after the GR passed and people said what we had
> indeed voted for.
The text in the CFV was indeed what went into the SC, so you
were not wrong to believe in that.
> I have a sincere distrust for CfVs since then since I feel badly
In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was
included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you
did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds
like the person doing the misleading was just you being lazy.
The consequences of those words may have come as a surprise to
you (and indeed, they did to me as well), but there was nothing that
I could have done about that.
Next time, do read the full text of what you are voting on.
Why is it that we rejoice at a birth and grieve at a funeral? It is
because we are not the person involved. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C