Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava: If people cannot understand: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution. To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read encrypted ballots. As long as you do not send encrypted ballots, your speculation about the reasons does not matter. I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it says that your use of shall is valid in British English, but only for the first person, not for the third person as it is used above. I shall not be able to..., but It will not be able to I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I will ... They shall. manoj -- Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. Andy Warhol Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.
Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.
The simple rule is that you (used to) use will when the subject of the
sentence is identical to the person who has the intent, and shall
otherwise.
Disclaimer: If this is utterly wrong, my brain shall lay the blame upon
my memory. ;-)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
There are very few original thinkers in the world; the greatest part of
those who are called philosophers have adopted the opinions of some who went
before them.
-- Dugald Stewert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I think you need a better grammar book. I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has FAR too many. I suggest trying [2]. Hey, that page even says that the traditional rules say to use will in the second person, unless you intend it to be a command --- and I have no idea why it would be. [3] also notes that the distinction is obsolete, especially in en_US. [4] and [5] give similar comments about non-usage in en_US, and alternate meanings in en_US. Considering the number of clearer, alternate ways to express the same thing, I don't see the sense in sticking with using shall in that sentence. FOOTNOTES 1. As opposed to the one cited in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200310/msg00030.html 2. The American Heritage® Book of English Usage http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html 3. Guide to Grammar and Style http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html 4. http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm 5. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/page/page/226236.htm#8280 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:28:18 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava: I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I will ... They shall. I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going to have the option (passive), which would be it will not, not the sense that you do not want it to have the option (active from your part), which would be it shall not. Well, that is partially true, but is not the entire reason for the construct; given the time table of the voting period, the current state of the code, my time constrainst, the technical reasons why encrypting to the (insecure) vote key is not a great idea, decryption shall not happen, at least for this vote. If the latter was the intent, than it shall not is indeed true, but from the other messages in the thread, I got the impression that you tried to convey the first meaning, in which case shall would be inappropriate. I wish people would give me a modicum of credit for being conversant with the language. However, I am indeed opposed to giving Devotee the ability to decrypt messages in the near term. However, for the purpose of this vote, you can bank on the the expectation that devotee shall not, indeed, decrypt your ballot. manoj -- e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. Karl Lehenbauer Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:01:24 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I think you need a better grammar book. I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has FAR too many. I suggest trying [2]. Hey, that page even says that the traditional rules say to use will in the second person, unless you intend it to be a command --- and I have no idea why it would be. [3] also notes that the distinction is obsolete, especially in en_US. [4] and [5] give similar comments about non-usage in en_US, and alternate meanings in en_US. 2. The American Heritage® Book of English Usage http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/056.html Lets go with this one. the traditional rules. The traditional rules state that you use shall to show what happens in the future only when I or we is the subject: I shall (not will) call you tomorrow. We shall (not will) be sure to keep in touch. Will, on the other hand, is used with subjects in the second and third persons: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. However, you can use will with a subject in the first person and shall with a subject in the second or third person to express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Devotee shall not parse encrypted mail -- that is indeed a promise, given the time frames involved, (and also the technical reasons it is so). I used the term advisedly. 3. Guide to Grammar and Style http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html If you send encrypted mail, Devote _shall not_ save you, used similarily as in the drownling example. 4. http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm Using shall in second and third persons would indicate some kind of promise about the subject. Quite so. 5. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/page/page/226236.htm#8280 On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:38:20 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, Manoj Srivastava: On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I will ... They shall. Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice. But the simpler rule did not suffice. The simple rule is that you (used to) use will when the subject of the sentence is identical to the person who has the intent, and shall otherwise. Not quite. See the rule above. manoj waxing didactic. -- You will live a long, healthy, happy life and make bags of money. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Manoj Srivastava: If people cannot understand: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution. To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read encrypted ballots. I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it says that your use of shall is valid in British English, but only for the first person, not for the third person as it is used above. I shall not be able to..., but It will not be able to It also says that the use is archaic and should be avoided. I tend to agree, it just confuses people (as you may have noted from the multitude of posts about it). -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava: If people cannot understand: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution. To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read encrypted ballots. As long as you do not send encrypted ballots, your speculation about the reasons does not matter. I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it says that your use of shall is valid in British English, but only for the first person, not for the third person as it is used above. I shall not be able to..., but It will not be able to I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I will ... They shall. manoj -- Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. Andy Warhol Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Manoj Srivastava: I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I will ... They shall. I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going to have the option (passive), which would be it will not, not the sense that you do not want it to have the option (active from your part), which would be it shall not. If the latter was the intent, than it shall not is indeed true, but from the other messages in the thread, I got the impression that you tried to convey the first meaning, in which case shall would be inappropriate. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: Devotee? I don't understand that reference. Devotee is the voting mechanism. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: Devotee? I don't understand that reference. Devotee is the voting mechanism. Thanks. I was imagining something quite different! -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. Psalms 40:8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English. So you say. I beg to differ. Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and command of the language; I have lived for the last decade and a half in university towns, where I have seen the absolute ignorance of the rules of grammar and lately, the ability to construct a grammatical sentence by native speakers of the language. Picking up a language haphazardly when a child often does not compare to being taught the language well. Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these distinctions have become moot. (You should really examine the sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the subject's, and that the third person form was used). I did examine it. The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is will. I see that I gave a misleading description of the rule. The speaker's intent can indeed mandate the use of shall for the second and third person. However, that does not apply here, unless you wish to convey a very unexpected meaning. I have used the word consideredly, so look to what I did say, not what you imagine I must be saying. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. *Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said. Of course the original meaning of will is to express intention, and you may still say, He wills to do so and so to express someone's intention. But that is not the same as the normal future tense in the second and third person. That is, of course, the whole point of this grammatical rule. And you continue to belabor the obvious. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who need to learn it too. Misinformation? Has imprecision of usage become so commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be misinformation? If people do not understand what shall means in context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot when it comes to reading the constitution. manoj -- YOU!! Give me the CUTEST, PINKEST, most charming little VICTORIAN DOLLHOUSE you can find!! An make it SNAPPY!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and command of the language; I assume that refers to the statement that I am native English. If it referred to the rest of what I said, it would be foolish and arrogant. I have lived for the last decade and a half in university towns, where I have seen the absolute ignorance of the rules of grammar and lately, the ability to construct a grammatical sentence by native speakers of the language. Picking up a language haphazardly when a child often does not compare to being taught the language well. I completely agree. That is not my situation, as I explained above. We were taught grammar well, including the use of this particular rule. Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these distinctions have become moot. That is probably so in colloquial English, whose speakers are largely ignorant of grammar, and perhaps it is true of nearly all who left school in England after, say, 1975. The destruction of good English teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in 1967. ... Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. *Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said. Really? Do you then truly mean that it is your firm intention not to allow the software to decrypt voting messages? Do you also wish that intention to be the main thrust of the sentence? Since that meaning is unexpected, it would be better to find another way of expressing it. For example: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; I am determined not to give the voting mechanism the ability to decrypt an encrypted message. ... It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who need to learn it too. Misinformation? Has imprecision of usage become so commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be misinformation? If people do not understand what shall means in context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot when it comes to reading the constitution. What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it is good style and reproduce it. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. Psalms 40:8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi, now I am really confused. On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. *Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said. Again, for the non-native english speakers among us. You do not want the voting mechanism to be able to decrypt messages. This is not a technical limitation but you want the votes to be sent unencrypted over the internet. Is this what you want to say? Sorry about the confusiuon, Jochen -- http://seehuhn.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it is good style and reproduce it. So you continue to say. In my experience second and third person usage of shall and shall not is far from strained; and abounds all over literary works. And your arrogance is showing again. I am not going to post on this thread again; I have no intention of taking up time on this silly notpicking; we have a vote to run. manoj -- Have you got a 27 B stroke 6? Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and command of the language; I assume that refers to the statement that I am native English. If it referred to the rest of what I said, it would be foolish and arrogant. My, for someone who fails to understand the meaning of the word shall in this context, we sure have a high regard of our command of the language What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it is good style and reproduce it. I would suggest people make their own judgement on this, I am afraid that you have failed to impress me as a paragon of style and grammatical correctness. manoj -- An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. Benjamin Franklin Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The destruction of good English teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in 1967. Sir, I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in England and poor English language instruction wholly absurd. The two phenomena are correlated, but are obviously linked by time. The 1970s saw popularity of a number of alternative English teaching practices, which did not teach grammar explicitly, but also had other defects (such as not correcting spelling). However, I know that some schools continued to teach English in a more traditional manner until the introduction of the National Curriculum. It is possible that some managed to continue beyond that, but I do not know them. I cannot see why you think comprehensive schooling caused so-called trendy teaching. As further evidence, attainment statistics reportedly show a broadly similar change over the same period of time across both selective and comprehensive areas. From anecdotal reports, the same teaching methods seem to have been used in selective schools. I apologise that this is now heading off-topic for the list. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-/
'Nuff said, and sorry for being somewhat-off-topic.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
An idealist is one who helps the other fellow to make a profit.
-- Henry Ford
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these distinctions have become moot. In point of fact, native speakers of en_US have largely discarded the use of shall entirely; it is, in spoken form, a very archaic and/or formal word, and rarely occurs outside of formal proceedings such as legal documents (where, on the other hand, it is regularly found used in ways which describe actions that will be forced on the subject under threat of whatever penalties can be levied). My impression (from regular conversations about such topics with en_GB speakers I see on a daily basis) is that this is much less true in that variant of the language. In point of fact, if you ask a high school teacher in the US today, you're likely to get the answer It's correct usage, but will probably confuse your audience, so it should be avoided in some situations. The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system are, by nature). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. (shall not is a more emphatic term, and the cannot currently handle implies intent that is not correct). Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system are, by nature). I somehow doubt that people won't replace shall with will; or that some how He shall not is construed as He may by my fellow non-native speaker. manoj -- All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely than others. Alan Truscott Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. (shall not is a more emphatic term, and the cannot currently handle implies intent that is not correct). Then I submit that your meaning is not, in fact, clear to a significant portion of the only audience that makes sense for this to be addressed to (that being 'Debian Developers', those who can cast votes). Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which means the emphasis given by using shall is, in fact, incorrect - you do not have the power to enforce your statement of intent, past your own tenure). Perhaps Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism is not written to handle encrypted ballots, and rejects them would work? It makes no implicit statements about the future, it clearly describes the current situation, and it entirely avoids the question of will/shall. Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system are, by nature). I somehow doubt that people won't replace shall with will; or that some how He shall not is construed as He may by my fellow non-native speaker. Given the context surrounding it, and the fact that it is an explanatory statement that expands upon a very short and straightforward directive, the fact that it is ambiguous to a significant number of en_GB speakers, and the vast majority of en_US speakers (who appear to form a majority of your audience) is not a crisis - but that doesn't mean that ambiguity is a good thing for this form of communication. Or you could simply remove the entire clause, and choose not to expand on the directive at all, though that seems less than optimal. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which means the emphasis given by using shall is, in fact, incorrect - you do not have the power to enforce your statement of intent, past your own tenure). You planning on replacing me, getting a successor, and having them write a replacement for Devotee, all in the next 14 days? If not, my statement, made in the context of this vote, still stands. manoj -- Compliment, n.: When you say something to another which everyone knows isn't true. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s. You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall? Now, now. Don't make fun of people's animistic beliefs. -- G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux |or more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. (shall not is a more emphatic term, and the cannot currently handle implies intent that is not correct). Then I submit that your meaning is not, in fact, clear to a significant portion of the only audience that makes sense for this to be addressed to (that being 'Debian Developers', those who can cast votes). If people cannot understand: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution. manoj -- Maj. Bloodnok: Seagoon, you're a coward! Seagoon: Only in the holiday season. Maj. Bloodnok: Ah, another Noel Coward! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Manoj Srivastava: If people cannot understand: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution. To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read encrypted ballots. I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it says that your use of shall is valid in British English, but only for the first person, not for the third person as it is used above. I shall not be able to..., but It will not be able to It also says that the use is archaic and should be avoided. I tend to agree, it just confuses people (as you may have noted from the multitude of posts about it). -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava wrote: Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s. You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall? I claim that it is permissible to say that Devotee shall fail to decrypt your messages; indeed, I can state from reliable sources that devotee has no intent to even attempt any such decryption in the not so near future either. Not that I need anyones permission to so state on the ballot. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. Well I'm glad you've settled that question of English usage. Would I am happy that you are glad. you care to move on to the question of whether they is appropriate as a neuter first-person pronoun? I've always wanted to get that one settled.. As I do not seem to have used that term in the ballot, that is off limit for this list. Contact me offline if you wish to learn of my opinion on that issue -- and I do have an opinion. manoj -- Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and going around the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican theory; but, when evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming that no informed person can doubt it, it is customary for scientists to call it a fact. That all present life descended from earlier forms, over vast stretches of geologic time, is as firmly established as Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with respect to theories about how the process operates. Martin Gardner, Irving Kristol and the Facts of Life. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said: Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English. So you say. I beg to differ. Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. (You should really examine the sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the subject's, and that the third person form was used). I did examine it. The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is will. I see that I gave a misleading description of the rule. The speaker's intent can indeed mandate the use of shall for the second and third person. However, that does not apply here, unless you wish to convey a very unexpected meaning. The paradigms of this usage are I will drown and no one shall save me!, expressing a determined intent to suicide, and I shall drown and no one will save me, describing the situation and expressing despair. Here, no one shall save me - using the third person with shall - expresses the speaker's fixed intention. Your apparent intended meaning in Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. Devotee? I don't understand that reference. Of course the original meaning of will is to express intention, and you may still say, He wills to do so and so to express someone's intention. But that is not the same as the normal future tense in the second and third person. That is, of course, the whole point of this grammatical rule. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who need to learn it too. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. Psalms 40:8
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: Devotee? I don't understand that reference. Devotee is the voting mechanism. Thanks. I was imagining something quite different! -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. Psalms 40:8
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said: Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English. So you say. I beg to differ. Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and command of the language; I have lived for the last decade and a half in university towns, where I have seen the absolute ignorance of the rules of grammar and lately, the ability to construct a grammatical sentence by native speakers of the language. Picking up a language haphazardly when a child often does not compare to being taught the language well. Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these distinctions have become moot. (You should really examine the sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the subject's, and that the third person form was used). I did examine it. The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is will. I see that I gave a misleading description of the rule. The speaker's intent can indeed mandate the use of shall for the second and third person. However, that does not apply here, unless you wish to convey a very unexpected meaning. I have used the word consideredly, so look to what I did say, not what you imagine I must be saying. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. *Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said. Of course the original meaning of will is to express intention, and you may still say, He wills to do so and so to express someone's intention. But that is not the same as the normal future tense in the second and third person. That is, of course, the whole point of this grammatical rule. And you continue to belabor the obvious. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who need to learn it too. Misinformation? Has imprecision of usage become so commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be misinformation? If people do not understand what shall means in context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot when it comes to reading the constitution. manoj -- YOU!! Give me the CUTEST, PINKEST, most charming little VICTORIAN DOLLHOUSE you can find!! An make it SNAPPY!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and command of the language; I assume that refers to the statement that I am native English. If it referred to the rest of what I said, it would be foolish and arrogant. I have lived for the last decade and a half in university towns, where I have seen the absolute ignorance of the rules of grammar and lately, the ability to construct a grammatical sentence by native speakers of the language. Picking up a language haphazardly when a child often does not compare to being taught the language well. I completely agree. That is not my situation, as I explained above. We were taught grammar well, including the use of this particular rule. Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these distinctions have become moot. That is probably so in colloquial English, whose speakers are largely ignorant of grammar, and perhaps it is true of nearly all who left school in England after, say, 1975. The destruction of good English teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in 1967. ... Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. *Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said. Really? Do you then truly mean that it is your firm intention not to allow the software to decrypt voting messages? Do you also wish that intention to be the main thrust of the sentence? Since that meaning is unexpected, it would be better to find another way of expressing it. For example: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; I am determined not to give the voting mechanism the ability to decrypt an encrypted message. ... It's your document. However, since many non-English speakers read this and may be guided by it, misinformation should not go unchallenged. There are no doubt many native English speakers who need to learn it too. Misinformation? Has imprecision of usage become so commonplace that didactic phraseology is construed to be misinformation? If people do not understand what shall means in context, then they have worse problems than understanding the ballot when it comes to reading the constitution. What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it is good style and reproduce it. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. Psalms 40:8
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi, now I am really confused. On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted messages. The sentence actually expresses your determination to prevent its having that capability, which is a very unexpected meaning. Perhaps that is what you mean. *Sigh*. As I said before, I meant what I said. Again, for the non-native english speakers among us. You do not want the voting mechanism to be able to decrypt messages. This is not a technical limitation but you want the votes to be sent unencrypted over the internet. Is this what you want to say? Sorry about the confusiuon, Jochen -- http://seehuhn.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said: What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it is good style and reproduce it. So you continue to say. In my experience second and third person usage of shall and shall not is far from strained; and abounds all over literary works. And your arrogance is showing again. I am not going to post on this thread again; I have no intention of taking up time on this silly notpicking; we have a vote to run. manoj -- Have you got a 27 B stroke 6? Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said: On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught. I find that has little to recommend as a metric of fluency and command of the language; I assume that refers to the statement that I am native English. If it referred to the rest of what I said, it would be foolish and arrogant. My, for someone who fails to understand the meaning of the word shall in this context, we sure have a high regard of our command of the language What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they think it is good style and reproduce it. I would suggest people make their own judgement on this, I am afraid that you have failed to impress me as a paragon of style and grammatical correctness. manoj -- An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. Benjamin Franklin Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-/
'Nuff said, and sorry for being somewhat-off-topic.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
An idealist is one who helps the other fellow to make a profit.
-- Henry Ford
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust the gut of the native speakers when it comes to fine points of usage. Perhaps the language is evolving to the point that these distinctions have become moot. In point of fact, native speakers of en_US have largely discarded the use of shall entirely; it is, in spoken form, a very archaic and/or formal word, and rarely occurs outside of formal proceedings such as legal documents (where, on the other hand, it is regularly found used in ways which describe actions that will be forced on the subject under threat of whatever penalties can be levied). My impression (from regular conversations about such topics with en_GB speakers I see on a daily basis) is that this is much less true in that variant of the language. In point of fact, if you ask a high school teacher in the US today, you're likely to get the answer It's correct usage, but will probably confuse your audience, so it should be avoided in some situations. The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system are, by nature). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgp9o0Fs98Hst.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. (shall not is a more emphatic term, and the cannot currently handle implies intent that is not correct). Ambiguity and working the brain is a good thing in literature, and a very bad thing when writing documentation, especially technical documentation (which is what instructions on using our voting system are, by nature). I somehow doubt that people won't replace shall with will; or that some how He shall not is construed as He may by my fellow non-native speaker. manoj -- All bridge hands are equally likely, but some are more equally likely than others. Alan Truscott Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected. The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. (shall not is a more emphatic term, and the cannot currently handle implies intent that is not correct). Then I submit that your meaning is not, in fact, clear to a significant portion of the only audience that makes sense for this to be addressed to (that being 'Debian Developers', those who can cast votes). If people cannot understand: Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution. manoj -- Maj. Bloodnok: Seagoon, you're a coward! Seagoon: Only in the holiday season. Maj. Bloodnok: Ah, another Noel Coward! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s. You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall? Now, now. Don't make fun of people's animistic beliefs. -- G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux |or more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj Srivastava wrote: Comments and feedback appreciated. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). Obviously, you mean between one and five, as there are that many options. Proposal A:The actual text of the proposal A is: Actual text? As opposed to what? Maybe you mean the complete text, or perhaps leave the adjective off altogether... Also, you don't need the second the. Proposal B: The actual text of the Proposal B is: ditto Proposal C: The actual text of the Proposal C is: AOL. Also, it might be nice to include a small summary of the effect of each of the proposals. For example: A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not* create a class of Foundation Documents. C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Additionally, you might want to note somewhere in the ballot that all three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Hope this helps! Joe Nahmias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ikFEKl23+OYWEqURAkXeAJ0c48oXZHfsFapW7wo7q4Vu18MBLQCg2VxH OJ9pQcxmXZMZelAt4JYnldk= =/6HL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions. ## Votes must be received by [time to be filled in] Don't forget a period at the end of this sentence when you fill in the time. This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution, s/to/with/ Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General s/an/a/ Resolution to Amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. s/Amend/amend/ The Full text of the amendment can be found at: s/Full/full/ http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 Is the full text the right term to use? The ballot options you have are comprehensive with respect to how they would alter the Constitution. HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in s/preferred/most preferred/ the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller s/next choice/next most preferred choice/ s/\./, and so forth until you have placed a number next to your least-preferred choice./ than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all s/2/5/ choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). s/2/5/ To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further s/You/you/ Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further s/equally the least desired choices/equally least desired/ Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [address to be filled in] s/:// and don't forget the period at the end of the sentence. Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism may not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [ ] Choice 4: No action [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion Why is Further Discussion fully capitalized but No action not? - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Proposal A:The actual text of the proposal A is: I don't understand what is meant by actual text, and the format of the proposed change is not explained. I reccomend: Proposal A: Amend the Constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. [...] Proposal B: The actual text of the Proposal B is: As above. [...] Proposal C: The actual text of the Proposal C is: As above. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right about that. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hello, On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [ ] Choice 4: No action [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I understand that Further Discussion is the default option, while No action is not. So wouldn't Choice 4 need five seconds to go into the ballot? Hmm. The old constitutional method, where we had two votes for multiple alternatives, first where we selected the form of the proposal, and second where we voted on the final proposal, had a mandatory set of yes/no/further discussion options. However, the new 1.1 amended constitution does not require this, so option 4 goes. (In any case we can't mandate no discussions, as Branden has pointed out in the past). Here is the new version. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is the new version. This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. Don't know how I missed this run-on... How about something like this: The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how? signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. s/shall not be able/will be unable/ Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. weird wrapping... anyone else see this, or is it just me? actually, i checked the archives, it's messed up there as well. That's it for now! Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking the last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the if any should be omitted? your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. The layout is broken here. I hope this helps, Jochen -- http://seehuhn.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking the last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the if any should be omitted? your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the the colored future system (described in http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html). In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, c. -- in such sentences the first person has will/would, the second and third persons shall/should. Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. The layout is broken here. Hmm. That is not reflected in the on disk ballot.txt file -- I guess something went wrong in the email version. I'll look into this. manoj -- The mistake you make is in trying to figure it out. Tennessee Williams Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote: your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the the colored future system (described in http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html). In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, c. -- in such sentences the first person has will/would, the second and third persons shall/should. Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English. The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is will. -- Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Isaiah 2:4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote: your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the the colored future system (described in http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html). In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, c. -- in such sentences the first person has will/would, the second and third persons shall/should. Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English. So you say. I beg to differ. (You should really examine the sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the subject's, and that the third person form was used). The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is will. Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. manoj -- You know, of course, that the Tasmanians, who never committed adultery, are now extinct. Somerset Maugham Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava wrote: Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s. You'd claim the rock is willing itself to fall? I claim that it is permissible to say that Devotee shall fail to decrypt your messages; indeed, I can state from reliable sources that devotee has no intent to even attempt any such decryption in the not so near future either. Not that I need anyones permission to so state on the ballot. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. Well I'm glad you've settled that question of English usage. Would I am happy that you are glad. you care to move on to the question of whether they is appropriate as a neuter first-person pronoun? I've always wanted to get that one settled.. As I do not seem to have used that term in the ballot, that is off limit for this list. Contact me offline if you wish to learn of my opinion on that issue -- and I do have an opinion. manoj -- Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and going around the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican theory; but, when evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming that no informed person can doubt it, it is customary for scientists to call it a fact. That all present life descended from earlier forms, over vast stretches of geologic time, is as firmly established as Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with respect to theories about how the process operates. Martin Gardner, Irving Kristol and the Facts of Life. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are 3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes out on Tuesday. Comments and feedback appreciated. I looked at A and C a few times without noticing the difference between them. It could be made clearer, would it be accpetable to add something like the following. Proposal A and C differ only in their definition of existing Foundation Documents. Glenn
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Manoj Srivastava wrote: Comments and feedback appreciated. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). Obviously, you mean between one and five, as there are that many options. Proposal A:The actual text of the proposal A is: Actual text? As opposed to what? Maybe you mean the complete text, or perhaps leave the adjective off altogether... Also, you don't need the second the. Proposal B: The actual text of the Proposal B is: ditto Proposal C: The actual text of the Proposal C is: AOL. Also, it might be nice to include a small summary of the effect of each of the proposals. For example: A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not* create a class of Foundation Documents. C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG. Additionally, you might want to note somewhere in the ballot that all three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Hope this helps! Joe Nahmias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ikFEKl23+OYWEqURAkXeAJ0c48oXZHfsFapW7wo7q4Vu18MBLQCg2VxH OJ9pQcxmXZMZelAt4JYnldk= =/6HL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions. ## Votes must be received by [time to be filled in] Don't forget a period at the end of this sentence when you fill in the time. This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution, s/to/with/ Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General s/an/a/ Resolution to Amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. s/Amend/amend/ The Full text of the amendment can be found at: s/Full/full/ http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 Is the full text the right term to use? The ballot options you have are comprehensive with respect to how they would alter the Constitution. HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in s/preferred/most preferred/ the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller s/next choice/next most preferred choice/ s/\./, and so forth until you have placed a number next to your least-preferred choice./ than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all s/2/5/ choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). s/2/5/ To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further s/You/you/ Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further s/equally the least desired choices/equally least desired/ Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [address to be filled in] s/:// and don't forget the period at the end of the sentence. Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism may not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [ ] Choice 4: No action [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion Why is Further Discussion fully capitalized but No action not? - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Proposal A:The actual text of the proposal A is: I don't understand what is meant by actual text, and the format of the proposed change is not explained. I reccomend: Proposal A: Amend the Constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. [...] Proposal B: The actual text of the Proposal B is: As above. [...] Proposal C: The actual text of the Proposal C is: As above. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists are afraid the optimists http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |are right about that. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hello, On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [ ] Choice 4: No action [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I understand that Further Discussion is the default option, while No action is not. So wouldn't Choice 4 need five seconds to go into the ballot? Hmm. The old constitutional method, where we had two votes for multiple alternatives, first where we selected the form of the proposal, and second where we voted on the final proposal, had a mandatory set of yes/no/further discussion options. However, the new 1.1 amended constitution does not require this, so option 4 goes. (In any case we can't mandate no discussions, as Branden has pointed out in the past). Here is the new version. manoj ## Votes must be received by Tue, Oct 28 23:59:59 UTC 2003. This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The text of the amendment can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0003 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 4). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [address to be filled [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 super majority needed] [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In the following text, the proposals are to amend the constitution as follows, by deleting the text marked with minus (-) signs at left, and inserting the text marked with plus (+) signs at left. All three of these proposals require a 3:1 super-majority in order to pass (as they modify the constitution). Proposal A: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and includes the Social Contract and the DFSG. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and + statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as + critical to the Project's mission and purposes. + 5.2 The Foundation
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is the new version. This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. Don't know how I missed this run-on... How about something like this: The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to amend the Debian Constitution to disambiguate section 4.1.5. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delinated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how? signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. s/shall not be able/will be unable/ Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. weird wrapping... anyone else see this, or is it just me? actually, i checked the archives, it's messed up there as well. That's it for now! Joe
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking the last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the if any should be omitted? your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. The layout is broken here. I hope this helps, Jochen -- http://seehuhn.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking the last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the if any should be omitted? your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the the colored future system (described in http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html). In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, c. -- in such sentences the first person has will/would, the second and third persons shall/should. Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. The layout is broken here. Hmm. That is not reflected in the on disk ballot.txt file -- I guess something went wrong in the email version. I'll look into this. manoj -- The mistake you make is in trying to figure it out. Tennessee Williams Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how? The ballot is rejected as corrupt. signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. s/shall not be able/will be unable/ http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not * create a class of Foundation Documents. weird wrapping... anyone else see this, or is it just me? actually, i checked the archives, it's messed up there as well. Should be better the next time around. manoj -- Grinnell's Law of Labor Laxity: At all times, for any task, you have not got enough done today. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said: On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote: your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate? No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the the colored future system (described in http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html). In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, c. -- in such sentences the first person has will/would, the second and third persons shall/should. Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English. So you say. I beg to differ. (You should really examine the sentence you quote -- that it being the speaker's intent, not the subject's, and that the third person form was used). The sentence does not fit the grammatical rule you quote, because a voting mechanism is incapable of having or expressing an intention or purpose. It is just a thing, and you are merely describing how it will behave, therefore the proper word to use is will. Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of anthropomorphism. In any case, this is no longer open to debate. manoj -- You know, of course, that the Tasmanians, who never committed adultery, are now extinct. Somerset Maugham Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are 3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes out on Tuesday. Comments and feedback appreciated. I looked at A and C a few times without noticing the difference between them. It could be made clearer, would it be accpetable to add something like the following. Proposal A and C differ only in their definition of existing Foundation Documents. Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
