On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1 > > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers > > felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or > > DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong. > > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable > > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social > > contract or DFSG. > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. > If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul > of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not? If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement, does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the constitution, personally. As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. > Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely > honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* > time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I > suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply > unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the > project forever. This is not honorable behavior. So much for not being about honour. In any event, each of the questions have been different, and it's quite plausible for someone to take any of the eight possible combinations of: Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no] If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no] Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no] As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances we've had in the votes to date. I hope you're tolerant enough to be able to cope with the variety of opinions on those questions present in Debian, and you're willing to retract the fairly insulting remarks above. There's absolutely no need to turn this discussion into an attack on those who disagree with you. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature