Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> > > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
> > > > to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
> > > > and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
> > >
> > > You think everyone must be voted on?
> >
> > Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy.
> >
> Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything.
That's why I said "everything significant". Compromising on our core
principles is one of the things I consider significant.
> In the majority of
> instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they
> have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You
> elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the
> option of overriding or recalling them if they don't.
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.
--
Robert Millan
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."
Reply to: