Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:54:43PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > > On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting
> > > > that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate
> > > > this responsibility. If they did, they'd have voted for option 4.
> > >
> > > They did vote for option 4, through the wonders of condorcet. more than
> > > half the voters were happy with that option (or it would not have beaten
> > > FD)
> > For a very specific and convenient definition of "happy". According to your
> > definition, the developers endorsed both delegating and not delegating at
> > the same time!
> > I guess now you'll have a hard time explaining me what this means...
> Not at all. Option 1 was the only option that failed to meet simple
> majority. Every other option on the ballot beat it by somewhere between
> a factor of 2 and 3. That seems like a pretty clear vote that the
> solution you are advocating is not what the project wants.
It seems as you're trying to vindicate option 4 by discrediting me by
discrediting option 1. Basically:
- Robert doesn't like option 4
- Robert voted for option 1
- Option 4 ranked above option 1
- The project is endorsing option 4!!
This doesn't make any sense. To begin with, my opinion is only a ridiculously
small part of the vote results.
> so I see
> that you haven't accepted the outcome.
Of course I have.
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."