On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Consider the "amendment" (in name only), > Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to > produce a distribution."
Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or replace
the text of the resolution with that?
Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
treated differently to:
[ ] Remove non-free?
[ ] Don't change
[ ] Further discussion
?
> If people vote sincerely (i.e., they vote in accordance with how much
> they truly agree with each ballot option), this particular option would
> stand a good chance of beating out *any* other option it was put up
> against before the developership.
That might be reasonable if the vote were:
[ ] Remove non-free and don't continue producing a distribution
[ ] Continue producing a distribution
[ ] Further discussion
But it's not.
> And the Project Secretary has indicated he would use his Constitutional
> power to prevent orthogonal ballot options from being voted on together,
> to thwart any such attempts to subvert the system. Which reduces the
> scope of this vulnerability to "How you, the Project Secretary, and four
> of your friends can kill any GR." :)
Options that say nothing other than "We'll keep doing what we've always
done", whether that be "maintaining a distribution" or "supporting i386"
are just explicit "status quo" options by another name. There's nothing
interesting here.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgpUUXt5yVJBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
