[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:44:20PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>  This ballot is nonsense:
>    a) I want to decide on requirements of source of firmwares AND allow
>       lenny to release with DFSG violations AND "proprietary" firmware
>       AND empower the release team to release with DFSG violations
>    b) why have a "reaffirm the social contract" option when we have
>       "further discussion"?  We all agreed to honor the social contract
>       anyway.
>  Apart of the noise of choice 1, this ballot doesn't empower us to
>  decide on the 4 different questions.

It is possible that my interpretation of the whole voting process is 
different from what the project at large has always considered it to be, 
but if I may disagree, I would say that the ballots are nothing but a 
way to choose a general resolution text.

We approve one whole text per vote, which means people cannot get to 
pick fragments of text individually in order to put them all together 
and form a binding resolution, especially as I do not see a clear way 
for proposals to get rejected that way in a Condorcet system unless they 
do not reach the quorum.

If no single proposal satisfied you entirely, and you would prefer that 
the project, under article 4.1 of the Constitution, ruled on two of the 
matters simultaneously, you should have submitted an amendment that put 
everything together in one option which you could vote on, not rely on 
the ability to vote on different proposed texts with one shot.

I am not blaming anyone or claiming to be right here; just giving the 
issue some random thought.

Guilherme de S. Pastore

Reply to: