On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > [ ] Drop non-free > > [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software > > < > Keep non-free as is (unproposed) > Before anybody gets a bright idea, that last one doesn't need > proposing, as it is the default option on the ballot; "Further > discussion" is precisely this scenario.
No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not
the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further.
In particular, that option is required to allow people to vote:
[ 1 ] Keep non-free
[ 2 ] Drop non-free
[ 3 ] Further discussion
should they prefer to keep non-free, but believe that dropping it is an
acceptable outcome if that's what most of Debian prefers. That's how I
expect to vote.
I'd be very surprised if there weren't a quarter of Debian who would
rather keep non-free than drop it (considering that's around the
proportion who maintain non-free packages), so without the separate
option, this proposal seems impossible to pass.
Note that:
100 votes Further discussion > Drop non-free
290 votes Drop non-free > Further Discussion
will cause Further discussion to win; while:
50 votes Keep non-free > Further discussion > Drop non-free
50 votes Keep non-free > Drop non-free > Further discussion
290 votes Drop non-free > Keep non-free > Further discussion
will cause Drop non-free to win.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
