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

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms



* Timo Weingärtner: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project
  itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Sat, 27 Mar 2021 11:51:40 +0100):

> Hallo Jonas,
> 
> 26.03.21 20:42 Jonas Smedegaard:
> > Quoting Calum McConnell (2021-03-26 20:14:50)
> >   
> > > > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any
> > > > of the open letters in question is invited to do this in person.  
> > > 
> > > "In person" is a bit unclear, given our times: can I sign it online?
> > > How about just adding my name?
> > > 
> > > I propose switching it to:  
> > > > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any
> > > > of the open letters on this subject is strongly encouraged to do so.  
> > > 
> > > It also handles the fact that the open letters aren't really 'in
> > > question', since there aren't any accepted amendments that mention
> > > them. I also switched out "invite", because I feel that 'invite'
> > > implies the ability to UN-invite (ie, block from signing), which is
> > > not one that we possess.  
> > 
> > I was assuming that "in person" meant "individually", but I can see how
> > it can instead mean "by showing up physically" which makes little sense
> > in the context.
> > 
> > Replacing "in person" with either "personally" or "individually" or "on
> > their own" would in my opinion convey the same intended message as is my
> > understanding (as a non-native english speaker) is the message now, and
> > I would second proposal with such change.
> > 
> > Removing "in person" would however loose what in my understanding is the
> > central point of the message and making the central point implicit,
> > causing it to risk becoming ambiguous (although I cannot think up right
> > now how any examples of how other meanings could be read into it).  I
> > would hesitate seconding a proposal with the phrase removed.
> > 
> > Replacing "invited to do this in person" with "strongly encouraged to do
> > so" would in my opinion radically change the message from an unbiased
> > "Debian does not recommend if you should personally support a petition
> > or not" to a biased "Debian recommends that you personally support a
> > petition".  I would *not* second such changed proposal.  
> 
> I took "in a personal capacity" from Gunnar.
> 
> > Replacing "in question" with "on this subject" seems to me to not change
> > to meaning of the message.  I would second a proposed text with that
> > change.  
> 
> That's better actually, because it is not restricted to statements mentioned 
> in the vote.
> 
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the
> open letters on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

Attachment: pgph_z7qGq1U1.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP


Reply to: