Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html -- Raul
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:40:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:09:36PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html Ah, ok, sure. I thought that proposals should be using brand new threads, so that people don't miss them though. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:54:51PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals Well, the record breaking flamewar that ensued didn't help understand them at least, but i think you are wrong. Tough. I wrote the original two and I know what they said and what the reactions were; I'm not. Ah, so just because you wrote the original proposals, anyone disagreing with you is wrong. I still wait your true proposal, as to propose ammendments. That's pretty stupid, because... Well, i disagree, if i understood the voting process right, someone proposes a GR, get's seconds, then once the right number of seconds is reached, there is a discussion period, where other people have the right to propose amendment to the proposal, which needs then in turn seconds and so on. Upto now, you have not acquired enough seconds, so we are still in the first phase of the GR proposal. This has still not happened though. Wrong. My first true proposal went out on December 24nd; my active one, which will probably go to vote, went out on December 29th. Mmm, i didn't see any December 29 proposal. Maybe i missed something or such, but then, could you please provide the URLs to the mail archive which seconded you ? What sort of crack are you actually smoking? Have you paid any attention to anything that anybody has said during this entire debate? There is no appreciable evidence that you have. Sure, you don't like what i have to say, so you resort to ad hominem (or however you write that) attacks, nice. presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. Yep i understand that. But the real issue is not the social contract, but what do we, we as the debian project, with majority (and probably a 3:1 super majority at that) intent to do about the non-free archives. If a decision is taken on that, we can let the rest to the word fiddlers and the actual social contract vote will just be one to make sure that the intentions of the non-free vote was not corrupted in the formalization. Anthony Towns violently disagrees with you, and I can't be bothered to argue. Oh, Anthony towns disagrees with me ? He hasn't said so, and you haven't provided quotes. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ] On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only If that were the case, why did I: 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later nullified); Nothing ever happened to this, so ... I refer you again to [1]. It was even voted on! There was also considerable controversy[4] over the voting method at the time. Ballots were also confusing and contradictory[5]. According to [2], the cause for the expiry seems to be related to then-Secretary Benham not having enough time to process the vote at the time. At [3], you can observe me trying to figure out why a vote wasn't happening. At [6], Secretary Benham announced the withdrawl of the vote due to the reasons in [2]. My response[7] clearly shows my displeasure that a vote was not being taken (I was somewhat excessive in my language, I think); though in hindsight, the considerable confusion and controversy over the vote itself may have made this a useful move. In November, 2002, I posted a revised[8] proposal, and indicated my intention to bring it through the GR process. New Secretary Srivastava indicated that the 2000 proposal was not dead; merely on hold[9], which, to the best of my knowledge, is still the case. I asked some questions about it in [10], and Manoj further clarified things in [11] and [12]. Thus, there is very substantial evidence that I attempted to move this forward to a resultion as much as possible. This is all a matter of public record, which you should have checked yourself before labeling me a fraud. It is crystal clear that you have no idea what you are talking about on that issue. 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting voted on now; No, the vote is a fraud and being dishonest, you are only interested in the options you propose, and fail to understand that people may have other opinions that yours. Also the condescending tone of the people What exactly about the vote is a fraud and dishonest? Do you assert that our voting mechanism is rigged? If so, you are talking to the wrong person about that; you should be proposing a Constitutional amendment or taking other action. All GRs to be voted on are listed in public. Votes are listed in public. How can it be dishonest when everybody can see for themselves exactly what it is that is being proposed? AND they can see for themselves all the discussion about it! I am well aware that opinions differ. If they did not, we would not be having these discussions. I will not, however, shrink from supporting that which I believe is right merely because it is controversial. 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary surveys; Sure, instead choosing the other delaying tactic which result in unterminable flamewars until everyone is sick of it. I find it extremely disingenuous of you to say that my actions in calling for a vote now are somehow a delaying tactic. In fact, I think that you are deliberately misrepresenting me here. 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...) I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues. I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago. Not Yep, with total disregard of what the project actually want. How is bringing something to a democratic vote showing disregard for what the project actually wants? What better way is there to find out what the project wants than holding a democratic vote? Are you afraid that the project does not want what you do, or that your notion of what the project wants may be proven false? only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has Yep, but you prefer stalling than having the risk of having it resolved against your proposal. First of all, my personal preferences have no bearing on the merits of any proposal, mine or otherwise. This is a classic ad hominem attack, and is toally meaningless. I will nevertheless defend my character, and point you to the narrative above detailing exactly how much I have pushed to get this to a vote, and thus
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...) I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas without all the needed administrativia which could be done later. disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues. You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329. Yeah, still work to do, how much could you (and me) have fixed in the whole time lost in this unneeded discussion. Also, the bug you mention Good point. It is time to vote on this. So, why did you oppose my tentative to move on on this with such bullshit (arg, arg . .. arg no, i will let it now). is not really a technical one, just some trivial change of dependency to remove some dependency of some non-free package. (BTW, why did you not Again, you lie. Well, that was what the changelog said. It was not a trivial change of a dependency; there was latex2html-specific code in there that had to be altered; the build system was really incompatible with anything else; tex4ht did not Ok, sorry then, but still it did _not_ include discussion with upstream of latex2html, did it ? document ways to accomplish things that would maintain the same level of functionality as latex2html, and I has to try to decipher a Japenese page to figure out how to do it. :)) choose hevea). Even i have been doing licencing issues fix, see : I don't recall at the moment. I did look at both of them, but don't remember the reasons for the choice. You prefer reading japanese documentation than french one ? (Joking, hevea has english docs i think). See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an Where have you been? I find this incredibly ironic that people are telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*. Yep, four year without action. And the proposals who where made about Totally wrong. Reread the first paragraph. I have read it, i also happen to remember what happened at that time, i even have the full mail archive of back then. this lately are of such a lack of honestity, trying to push things in without people noticing. This are the tactics of people knowing that This is totally false. How on earth do you expect a GR to pass without people noticing?! That would, at minimum, imply that quorum couldn't be met. Remember Branden's hide the removal of non-free among nice cosmetic changes GR tentative. their proposal has no chance of succeeding openly. I simply have no response for that one. I proposed to you that we go forward and try for calling a vote which would make people vote honestly, and resolve the action, instead of going trough under the belt tactics and hidden agendas. And instead of agreeing to go forward, you opposed me with administrative bullshit. I want to go forward, too. I simply didn't think that your proposal, as written, conformed to the guidelines in the Constitution for such things. Rather than invest lots of time in something that cannot even be voted on, I thought it better to tell you that up front. Yep, you goed formal and rejected it on the form, while i was discussing on the sense of it (err, in french you say le fond et la forme, don't know in english how it goes). That is where the difference is. It is more important to vote on the idea, than to nitpick on the form. Now, my word is not authoritative on the matter; if the Secretary rules otherwise, then of course I will support bringing this to a resolution. Moreover, I thought that your proposed GR was not really worded in such a way that a vote would really make sense. (For instance, would people really vote for non-free is the epythoma of evil? I sure wouldn't, And, you did not read the comment about that it should not really be me that had to give this rationale, Mmm, maybe i forgot the smiley, but it was an open invitation for you, as non-free removal defendent to provide the rationale. even though I don't know what epythoma means.) Sorry, no english native speaker, sorry. It didn't seem to me to be a very well-thought-out proposal. The idea behind are strong. Do you seriously
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. Let's vote about whether to vote or to poll. Or would it be better to organize a poll about that issue? Let's have a show of hands to decide whether to vote or poll about whether to vote or poll. And an argument about how we implement a show of hands over the internet. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas without all the needed administrativia which could be done later. But I believe you don't vote on drafts, you vote on the 'real' thing. I (and probably others) however had the impression that you actually wanted people to vote on something that was *not* a GR proposal, but merely a poll to gauge interest. Sorry if I misread you. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas without all the needed administrativia which could be done later. But I believe you don't vote on drafts, you vote on the 'real' thing. I (and probably others) however had the impression that you actually wanted people to vote on something that was *not* a GR proposal, but merely a poll to gauge interest. Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my writing is not of the style needed to do a formal proposal, i was a bit informal first, trying to get first the idea right, before doing the real thing, and propose it. Sorry if I misread you. No problem. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals Well, the record breaking flamewar that ensued didn't help understand them at least, but i think you are wrong. I still wait your true proposal, as to propose ammendments. This has still not happened though. presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. Yep i understand that. But the real issue is not the social contract, but what do we, we as the debian project, with majority (and probably a 3:1 super majority at that) intent to do about the non-free archives. If a decision is taken on that, we can let the rest to the word fiddlers and the actual social contract vote will just be one to make sure that the intentions of the non-free vote was not corrupted in the formalization. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my writing is not of the style needed to do a formal proposal, i was a bit informal first, trying to get first the idea right, before doing the real thing, and propose it. Sorry, I didn't know that. Probably because I only skimmed over most of the mails in that subthread. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals Well, the record breaking flamewar that ensued didn't help understand them at least, but i think you are wrong. Tough. I wrote the original two and I know what they said and what the reactions were; I'm not. And the discussion so far has miserably failed to approach the level of being worthy to be pissed on by the records. I still wait your true proposal, as to propose ammendments. That's pretty stupid, because... This has still not happened though. Wrong. My first true proposal went out on December 24nd; my active one, which will probably go to vote, went out on December 29th. What sort of crack are you actually smoking? Have you paid any attention to anything that anybody has said during this entire debate? There is no appreciable evidence that you have. presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. Yep i understand that. But the real issue is not the social contract, but what do we, we as the debian project, with majority (and probably a 3:1 super majority at that) intent to do about the non-free archives. If a decision is taken on that, we can let the rest to the word fiddlers and the actual social contract vote will just be one to make sure that the intentions of the non-free vote was not corrupted in the formalization. Anthony Towns violently disagrees with you, and I can't be bothered to argue. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5 different, mutually exclusive, options. Consider the below. How would you interpret a yes vote to the entire text? And how would you interpret a no vote to the entire text? (Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.) There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it. Ok, that's it, i am out of here. John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only lose everyone's time discussing things to death, hoping that all your opponent will be bored or lost under tons of emails end quit opposing you. Same goes for other proponents of the non-free thingy. Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to concretize anyway. And you know what, we have been perhaps 10-20 people involved in this discussion, and i have the feeling that the majority of the Debian project is sick of it. See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only If that were the case, why did I: 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later nullified); Nothing ever happened to this, so ... 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting voted on now; No, the vote is a fraud and being dishonest, you are only interested in the options you propose, and fail to understand that people may have other opinions that yours. Also the condescending tone of the people proposing the non-free removal stuff is lamentable, and assuredly will not help you pass that resolution. 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary surveys; Sure, instead choosing the other delaying tactic which result in unterminable flamewars until everyone is sick of it. 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...) I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues. I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago. Not Yep, with total disregard of what the project actually want. only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has Yep, but you prefer stalling than having the risk of having it resolved against your proposal. been the case for years. Votes were taken (though never counted) on my own 2000 proposal, which -- if you were to read it -- you'll see not only resolved the non-free issue but also the social contract one. Sure, but that was then, and this is now. Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to concretize anyway. I guess unsubscribing from -vote is too difficult for you? Sure, sure, why should i ? Other issues may happen on -vote that interest me, but this only proves my point. You discuss things to death, until all your opponents have left. You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329. Yeah, still work to do, how much could you (and me) have fixed in the whole time lost in this unneeded discussion. Also, the bug you mention is not really a technical one, just some trivial change of dependency to remove some dependency of some non-free package. (BTW, why did you not choose hevea). Even i have been doing licencing issues fix, see : #224417 and #223776. And it included going for the search of a licence lost in the DEC-Compaq-HP migration, and failing that discussing with upstream and package the new free implementation they did consecutive to it, which is now in a separate package. Much more constructive work that just changing a dependency, don't you think ? But this is significative of both our stances on this, you will remove the functionality to accord to your ideal and actively oppose upstream until they either yield or leave, while i prefer to work with my upstreams with whom i have good contact. After all, what would debian be without our upstreams ? See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an Where have you been? I find this incredibly ironic that people are telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*. Yep, four year without action. And the proposals who where made about this lately are of such a lack of honestity, trying to push things in without people noticing. This are the tactics of people knowing that their proposal has no chance of succeeding openly. I simply have no response for that one. I proposed to you that we go forward and try for calling a vote which would make people vote honestly, and resolve the action, instead of going trough under the belt tactics and hidden agendas. And instead of agreeing to go forward, you opposed me with administrative bullshit. actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few Oh come on, we can't discuss things untill a CFV is issued? What kind of a silly rule is that? No CFV will be issued ever if you discuss, not the wording of the ballot, but the actual actual topic submited to vote already, which is what has been happening here. This is not a silly rule, only observation of what is going on. And you keeping speaking in the wind will not help you there. ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately. [1]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only If that were the case, why did I: 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later nullified); 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting voted on now; 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary surveys; 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago. Not only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has been the case for years. Votes were taken (though never counted) on my own 2000 proposal, which -- if you were to read it -- you'll see not only resolved the non-free issue but also the social contract one. Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to concretize anyway. I guess unsubscribing from -vote is too difficult for you? You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329. See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an Where have you been? I find this incredibly ironic that people are telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*. I simply have no response for that one. actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few Oh come on, we can't discuss things untill a CFV is issued? What kind of a silly rule is that? ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas without all the needed administrativia which could be done later. But I believe you don't vote on drafts, you vote on the 'real' thing. I (and probably others) however had the impression that you actually wanted people to vote on something that was *not* a GR proposal, but merely a poll to gauge interest. Sorry if I misread you. Michael
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. Let's vote about whether to vote or to poll. Or would it be better to organize a poll about that issue? Let's have a show of hands to decide whether to vote or poll about whether to vote or poll. And an argument about how we implement a show of hands over the internet. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:41:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas without all the needed administrativia which could be done later. But I believe you don't vote on drafts, you vote on the 'real' thing. I (and probably others) however had the impression that you actually wanted people to vote on something that was *not* a GR proposal, but merely a poll to gauge interest. Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my writing is not of the style needed to do a formal proposal, i was a bit informal first, trying to get first the idea right, before doing the real thing, and propose it. Sorry if I misread you. No problem. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals Well, the record breaking flamewar that ensued didn't help understand them at least, but i think you are wrong. I still wait your true proposal, as to propose ammendments. This has still not happened though. presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. Yep i understand that. But the real issue is not the social contract, but what do we, we as the debian project, with majority (and probably a 3:1 super majority at that) intent to do about the non-free archives. If a decision is taken on that, we can let the rest to the word fiddlers and the actual social contract vote will just be one to make sure that the intentions of the non-free vote was not corrupted in the formalization. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:04:11PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Yep. But then you all said this was stupid or something, that we were loosing time, and ... So, i actually changed minds, and was going to try doing a real proposal or something, but as i perfectly know that my writing is not of the style needed to do a formal proposal, i was a bit informal first, trying to get first the idea right, before doing the real thing, and propose it. Sorry, I didn't know that. Probably because I only skimmed over most of the mails in that subthread. Michael
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:11:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Since the non-free GR and the social contract modification GR encountered nothing but flamewar, [...] Furthermore, i believe that the real issue is the non-free issue, and that the social contract GR is only a way to achieve a solution to the non-free GR, These two remarks show an acute lack of comprehension of the proposals Well, the record breaking flamewar that ensued didn't help understand them at least, but i think you are wrong. Tough. I wrote the original two and I know what they said and what the reactions were; I'm not. And the discussion so far has miserably failed to approach the level of being worthy to be pissed on by the records. I still wait your true proposal, as to propose ammendments. That's pretty stupid, because... This has still not happened though. Wrong. My first true proposal went out on December 24nd; my active one, which will probably go to vote, went out on December 29th. What sort of crack are you actually smoking? Have you paid any attention to anything that anybody has said during this entire debate? There is no appreciable evidence that you have. presently on the table (there are several ways to parse it; if it refers to the proposals I am currently working on, only one of which is currently tabled, then it's staggeringly wrong). There are no active or draft proposals that do not modify the social contract. Yep i understand that. But the real issue is not the social contract, but what do we, we as the debian project, with majority (and probably a 3:1 super majority at that) intent to do about the non-free archives. If a decision is taken on that, we can let the rest to the word fiddlers and the actual social contract vote will just be one to make sure that the intentions of the non-free vote was not corrupted in the formalization. Anthony Towns violently disagrees with you, and I can't be bothered to argue. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
[ General note: This message contains some history that may be of interest regarding the previous attempts to get a vote on the topic. ] On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:32:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only If that were the case, why did I: 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later nullified); Nothing ever happened to this, so ... I refer you again to [1]. It was even voted on! There was also considerable controversy[4] over the voting method at the time. Ballots were also confusing and contradictory[5]. According to [2], the cause for the expiry seems to be related to then-Secretary Benham not having enough time to process the vote at the time. At [3], you can observe me trying to figure out why a vote wasn't happening. At [6], Secretary Benham announced the withdrawl of the vote due to the reasons in [2]. My response[7] clearly shows my displeasure that a vote was not being taken (I was somewhat excessive in my language, I think); though in hindsight, the considerable confusion and controversy over the vote itself may have made this a useful move. In November, 2002, I posted a revised[8] proposal, and indicated my intention to bring it through the GR process. New Secretary Srivastava indicated that the 2000 proposal was not dead; merely on hold[9], which, to the best of my knowledge, is still the case. I asked some questions about it in [10], and Manoj further clarified things in [11] and [12]. Thus, there is very substantial evidence that I attempted to move this forward to a resultion as much as possible. This is all a matter of public record, which you should have checked yourself before labeling me a fraud. It is crystal clear that you have no idea what you are talking about on that issue. 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting voted on now; No, the vote is a fraud and being dishonest, you are only interested in the options you propose, and fail to understand that people may have other opinions that yours. Also the condescending tone of the people What exactly about the vote is a fraud and dishonest? Do you assert that our voting mechanism is rigged? If so, you are talking to the wrong person about that; you should be proposing a Constitutional amendment or taking other action. All GRs to be voted on are listed in public. Votes are listed in public. How can it be dishonest when everybody can see for themselves exactly what it is that is being proposed? AND they can see for themselves all the discussion about it! I am well aware that opinions differ. If they did not, we would not be having these discussions. I will not, however, shrink from supporting that which I believe is right merely because it is controversial. 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary surveys; Sure, instead choosing the other delaying tactic which result in unterminable flamewars until everyone is sick of it. I find it extremely disingenuous of you to say that my actions in calling for a vote now are somehow a delaying tactic. In fact, I think that you are deliberately misrepresenting me here. 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...) I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues. I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago. Not Yep, with total disregard of what the project actually want. How is bringing something to a democratic vote showing disregard for what the project actually wants? What better way is there to find out what the project wants than holding a democratic vote? Are you afraid that the project does not want what you do, or that your notion of what the project wants may be proven false? only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has Yep, but you prefer stalling than having the risk of having it resolved against your proposal. First of all, my personal preferences have no bearing on the merits of any proposal, mine or otherwise. This is a classic ad hominem attack, and is toally meaningless. I will nevertheless defend my character, and point you to the narrative above detailing exactly how much I have pushed to get this to a vote, and thus
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:55:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...) I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You Uhm, if it was not a GR proposal, then why did your message[13] say non-free removal GR draft? Please check the meaning of the word draft in the dictionary. Sure, i don't have the chance to be a native english speaker, but assuredly, a draft (or a brouillon in french) is something quite different from the finished thing, and something which can be used to express the ideas without all the needed administrativia which could be done later. disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues. You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329. Yeah, still work to do, how much could you (and me) have fixed in the whole time lost in this unneeded discussion. Also, the bug you mention Good point. It is time to vote on this. So, why did you oppose my tentative to move on on this with such bullshit (arg, arg . .. arg no, i will let it now). is not really a technical one, just some trivial change of dependency to remove some dependency of some non-free package. (BTW, why did you not Again, you lie. Well, that was what the changelog said. It was not a trivial change of a dependency; there was latex2html-specific code in there that had to be altered; the build system was really incompatible with anything else; tex4ht did not Ok, sorry then, but still it did _not_ include discussion with upstream of latex2html, did it ? document ways to accomplish things that would maintain the same level of functionality as latex2html, and I has to try to decipher a Japenese page to figure out how to do it. :)) choose hevea). Even i have been doing licencing issues fix, see : I don't recall at the moment. I did look at both of them, but don't remember the reasons for the choice. You prefer reading japanese documentation than french one ? (Joking, hevea has english docs i think). See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an Where have you been? I find this incredibly ironic that people are telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*. Yep, four year without action. And the proposals who where made about Totally wrong. Reread the first paragraph. I have read it, i also happen to remember what happened at that time, i even have the full mail archive of back then. this lately are of such a lack of honestity, trying to push things in without people noticing. This are the tactics of people knowing that This is totally false. How on earth do you expect a GR to pass without people noticing?! That would, at minimum, imply that quorum couldn't be met. Remember Branden's hide the removal of non-free among nice cosmetic changes GR tentative. their proposal has no chance of succeeding openly. I simply have no response for that one. I proposed to you that we go forward and try for calling a vote which would make people vote honestly, and resolve the action, instead of going trough under the belt tactics and hidden agendas. And instead of agreeing to go forward, you opposed me with administrative bullshit. I want to go forward, too. I simply didn't think that your proposal, as written, conformed to the guidelines in the Constitution for such things. Rather than invest lots of time in something that cannot even be voted on, I thought it better to tell you that up front. Yep, you goed formal and rejected it on the form, while i was discussing on the sense of it (err, in french you say le fond et la forme, don't know in english how it goes). That is where the difference is. It is more important to vote on the idea, than to nitpick on the form. Now, my word is not authoritative on the matter; if the Secretary rules otherwise, then of course I will support bringing this to a resolution. Moreover, I thought that your proposed GR was not really worded in such a way that a vote would really make sense. (For instance, would people really vote for non-free is the epythoma of evil? I sure wouldn't, And, you did not read the comment about that it should not really be me that had to give this rationale, Mmm, maybe i forgot the smiley, but it was an open invitation for you, as non-free removal defendent to provide the rationale. even though I don't know what epythoma means.) Sorry, no english native speaker, sorry. It didn't seem to me to be a very well-thought-out proposal. The idea behind are strong. Do you seriously
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good administrative writer, but was thinking about something like : begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Why not ? Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole speculation on what the DDs really want and enable us to go forward constructively than all this mess that is surrounding this question, and second, we can then propose a 3:1 social contract GR, which will benefit from an idea of what will happen later. But we could just as well propose a 3:1 social contract GR now, without the intervenng lag of a poll, and let it stand or fall on its own merits; and if people prefer to have some other wording, amendments can be proposed under the procedures we already have. Like, you know, if the majority of the DDs want to keep non-free, then there is no sense in having the social contract GR remove the words about the non-free issue, and we can have a clean GR which only does the nice cosmetic changes Branden has proposed. We can have both, even without the poll; one GR and one hostile amendment that get voted on at once. I personally would not see an informal poll as necessarily indicitive of how the results would play out in a formal vote. I suspect others would share that sentiment. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up. And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do. Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good administrative writer, but was thinking about something like : begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Why not ? Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole speculation on what the DDs really want and enable us to go forward constructively than all this mess that is surrounding this question, and second, we can then propose a 3:1 social contract GR, which will benefit from an idea of what will happen later. Like, you know, if the majority of the DDs want to keep non-free, then there is no sense in having the social contract GR remove the words about the non-free issue, and we can have a clean GR which only does the nice cosmetic changes Branden has proposed. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free, non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that difficult. I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate in the poll? Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. That's another option which doesn't require a poll. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this since 2000 :-) -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Why not ? Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole speculation on what the DDs really want and enable us to go forward constructively than all this mess that is surrounding this question, and second, we can then propose a 3:1 social contract GR, which will benefit from an idea of what will happen later. But we could just as well propose a 3:1 social contract GR now, without the intervenng lag of a poll, and let it stand or fall on its own merits; and if people prefer to have some other wording, amendments can be proposed under the procedures we already have. Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up. And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do. Also, i believe that simple questions deserve simple votes, without the word playing that has gone into the social contract GR. Like, you know, if the majority of the DDs want to keep non-free, then there is no sense in having the social contract GR remove the words about the non-free issue, and we can have a clean GR which only does the nice cosmetic changes Branden has proposed. We can have both, even without the poll; one GR and one hostile amendment that get voted on at once. Sure, but at least it would clarify the argumentation. People from one camp could not continue argumenting that they do it for the benefit of the debian project, while a majority of voting DDs has opposed it, as at least one camp is doing right now. I personally would not see an informal poll as necessarily indicitive of how the results would play out in a formal vote. I suspect others would share that sentiment. Sure, but it should orient how we approach the formal votes, and what exactly will be voted on. And it would put an end of this endless bickering. I somehow believe that a majority of the DDs are of the opinion that 'let's vote on something, so that this stupid flammage no stops'. Notice that the non-free has not yet obtained enough seconds. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up. And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do. Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. Something like : provided the social contract gets ammended, we would like to do ... blah blah ... about non-free. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free, non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that difficult. Yeah, but then you have to split social contract into social contract small changes, or social contract small change + hidden removal of non-free. Also, the majority is not the same. For example, if a majority of DDs want to can non-free, i guess some oponents of the social contract change would feel compeled to vote for it. I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? Something needs to happen now, and the non-free issue is the one we need to decide over. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate in the poll? Yep, sure, i guess the dishonest among us will vote let's keep non-free now, and then after the GR pass, remove it. Would not work though, since if we vote to keep non-free, there is no point in voting the non-cosmetic social contract changes. Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. That's another option which doesn't require a poll. Ok, i will propose it then, if someone helps me cleaning up the draft proposal who speaks better english than me, and who writes better in general. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this since 2000 :-) But quarreling like fish merchant here won't help. The idea is to discipline ourself enough to start the flamage and discussion once the vote has been submitted, not like we do now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : --- start non-free removal GR draft Provided the social contract get's ammended by a 3:1 majority to let us act accordyingly to this vote, we will now take a decision about what we want to do about the non-free archive on the debian servers. Proposition A : Keep non-free. Rationale : non-free is usefull for our user who needs it, as a bridge for a given piece of software who may one day become non-free, and for other reasons. So let's keep it. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition B : Remove non-free. Rationale : non-free is the epythoma of evil, let's purge it from our servers :)) (well, not seriously, but you are better placed to provide a rationale here). (Needs a social contract change though) Proposition C : Remove the non-free packages case by case. Rationale : the non-freeness of the packages in non-free is of varying quality, so let's look at it case per case, and remove those that have no chance to ever becoming free, those that are badly maintained and nobody cares about and those that have a free replacement. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition D : Remove the none-free packages case by case, but also provide infrastructure for actively making non-free packages not needed anymore. Rationale : same as above, but we additionnally will provide guidance to users of non-free packages about what free alternative best suits them, and an infrastructure for discussing licencing changes with upstream and/or orienting interested developers to where they can help free the package or improve the alternatives. It would be the non-free maintainers packages responsability to manage this, on infrastructure provided by the debian project. (Social contract could be changed to mention we support users, but actively encourage people to migrate from non-free software to free replacements). Proposition E : Remove non-free, as well as any hint of non-free packages still hiding in main, the whole of contrib and all non-free packag installers. Rationale : after all, why show favoritism for the packages in main whose we were not honest enough to move into non-free, contrib is of no use without main, and installer of non-free stuff are of no use without the non-free stuff they install, and thus don't belong into debian. --- end non-free removal GR draft Friendly, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5 different, mutually exclusive, options. Consider the below. How would you interpret a yes vote to the entire text? And how would you interpret a no vote to the entire text? (Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.) There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it. -- John --- start non-free removal GR draft Provided the social contract get's ammended by a 3:1 majority to let us act accordyingly to this vote, we will now take a decision about what we want to do about the non-free archive on the debian servers. Proposition A : Keep non-free. Rationale : non-free is usefull for our user who needs it, as a bridge for a given piece of software who may one day become non-free, and for other reasons. So let's keep it. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition B : Remove non-free. Rationale : non-free is the epythoma of evil, let's purge it from our servers :)) (well, not seriously, but you are better placed to provide a rationale here). (Needs a social contract change though) Proposition C : Remove the non-free packages case by case. Rationale : the non-freeness of the packages in non-free is of varying quality, so let's look at it case per case, and remove those that have no chance to ever becoming free, those that are badly maintained and nobody cares about and those that have a free replacement. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition D : Remove the none-free packages case by case, but also provide infrastructure for actively making non-free packages not needed anymore. Rationale : same as above, but we additionnally will provide guidance to users of non-free packages about what free alternative best suits them, and an infrastructure for discussing licencing changes with upstream and/or orienting interested developers to where they can help free the package or improve the alternatives. It would be the non-free maintainers packages responsability to manage this, on infrastructure provided by the debian project. (Social contract could be changed to mention we support users, but actively encourage people to migrate from non-free software to free replacements). Proposition E : Remove non-free, as well as any hint of non-free packages still hiding in main, the whole of contrib and all non-free packag installers. Rationale : after all, why show favoritism for the packages in main whose we were not honest enough to move into non-free, contrib is of no use without main, and installer of non-free stuff are of no use without the non-free stuff they install, and thus don't belong into debian. --- end non-free removal GR draft Friendly, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5 different, mutually exclusive, options. Don't be stupid, it is evident that you will rank the different options. Consider the below. How would you interpret a yes vote to the entire text? And how would you interpret a no vote to the entire text? (Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.) There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it. I asked for help on the wording, not more langue de bois, as we say in french. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good administrative writer, but was thinking about something like : begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Uh, that's the whole point -- you do non-binding things when you're not ready to resolve them. That's useful for working out what you want we want to do; eg questions that arise from removing non-free that haven't been resolved yet include: keep or drop contrib, drop all of non-free or just restrict it more than we do atm, is anyone going to setup a separate archive for non-free stuff. 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 can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5 different, mutually exclusive, options. Consider the below. How would you interpret a yes vote to the entire text? And how would you interpret a no vote to the entire text? (Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.) There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it. Ok, that's it, i am out of here. John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only lose everyone's time discussing things to death, hoping that all your opponent will be bored or lost under tons of emails end quit opposing you. Same goes for other proponents of the non-free thingy. Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to concretize anyway. And you know what, we have been perhaps 10-20 people involved in this discussion, and i have the feeling that the majority of the Debian project is sick of it. See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only If that were the case, why did I: 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later nullified); 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting voted on now; 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary surveys; 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago. Not only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has been the case for years. Votes were taken (though never counted) on my own 2000 proposal, which -- if you were to read it -- you'll see not only resolved the non-free issue but also the social contract one. Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to concretize anyway. I guess unsubscribing from -vote is too difficult for you? You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329. See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an Where have you been? I find this incredibly ironic that people are telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*. I simply have no response for that one. actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few Oh come on, we can't discuss things untill a CFV is issued? What kind of a silly rule is that? ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:07:14AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:44:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: John, you are a fraud, you don't really want to resolve this issue, only If that were the case, why did I: 1. Get this issue to a vote back in 2000[1] (though that vote was later nullified); Nothing ever happened to this, so ... 2. Second the proposals before us now, moving them closer to getting voted on now; No, the vote is a fraud and being dishonest, you are only interested in the options you propose, and fail to understand that people may have other opinions that yours. Also the condescending tone of the people proposing the non-free removal stuff is lamentable, and assuredly will not help you pass that resolution. 3. Oppose delaying tactics such as unnecessary surveys; Sure, instead choosing the other delaying tactic which result in unterminable flamewars until everyone is sick of it. 4. Oppose GR proposals that cannot be actually voted on in any sane fashion due to being incompatible with procedures in the Constitution. (arg, it is difficult to resist being rude, arg, have to control myself ...) I don't understand that, it was not a GR proposal. It was a draft for what i considered the points that could be submitted to vote. You disagreed, obviously, but instead on working with me as i asked you to find proper wording and such, you opposed it with administrative issues. I literally started trying to resolve this nearly *four years* ago. Not Yep, with total disregard of what the project actually want. only can I tell you, up front and completely honestly, that I want this resolved; you can also see, as a matter of public record, that this has Yep, but you prefer stalling than having the risk of having it resolved against your proposal. been the case for years. Votes were taken (though never counted) on my own 2000 proposal, which -- if you were to read it -- you'll see not only resolved the non-free issue but also the social contract one. Sure, but that was then, and this is now. Go fix some RC bugs, and help make sarge releasable instead of loosing everyone's time with unending discussions you have no intentions to concretize anyway. I guess unsubscribing from -vote is too difficult for you? Sure, sure, why should i ? Other issues may happen on -vote that interest me, but this only proves my point. You discuss things to death, until all your opponents have left. You might notice that I *am* fixing RC bugs, such as #221329. Yeah, still work to do, how much could you (and me) have fixed in the whole time lost in this unneeded discussion. Also, the bug you mention is not really a technical one, just some trivial change of dependency to remove some dependency of some non-free package. (BTW, why did you not choose hevea). Even i have been doing licencing issues fix, see : #224417 and #223776. And it included going for the search of a licence lost in the DEC-Compaq-HP migration, and failing that discussing with upstream and package the new free implementation they did consecutive to it, which is now in a separate package. Much more constructive work that just changing a dependency, don't you think ? But this is significative of both our stances on this, you will remove the functionality to accord to your ideal and actively oppose upstream until they either yield or leave, while i prefer to work with my upstreams with whom i have good contact. After all, what would debian be without our upstreams ? See you when you have actually proposed something, and there is an Where have you been? I find this incredibly ironic that people are telling me to shut up until I propose something, when I already did *ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO*. Yep, four year without action. And the proposals who where made about this lately are of such a lack of honestity, trying to push things in without people noticing. This are the tactics of people knowing that their proposal has no chance of succeeding openly. I simply have no response for that one. I proposed to you that we go forward and try for calling a vote which would make people vote honestly, and resolve the action, instead of going trough under the belt tactics and hidden agendas. And instead of agreeing to go forward, you opposed me with administrative bullshit. actual vote going on, and then we can discuss things. And expect a few Oh come on, we can't discuss things untill a CFV is issued? What kind of a silly rule is that? No CFV will be issued ever if you discuss, not the wording of the ballot, but the actual actual topic submited to vote already, which is what has been happening here. This is not a silly rule, only observation of what is going on. And you keeping speaking in the wind will not help you there. ammendment from my part if your proposals are as ridicoulous and dishonest as the ones that have been passing around lately. [1]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up. And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do. Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. -- John
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Why not ? Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole speculation on what the DDs really want and enable us to go forward constructively than all this mess that is surrounding this question, and second, we can then propose a 3:1 social contract GR, which will benefit from an idea of what will happen later. But we could just as well propose a 3:1 social contract GR now, without the intervenng lag of a poll, and let it stand or fall on its own merits; and if people prefer to have some other wording, amendments can be proposed under the procedures we already have. Like, you know, if the majority of the DDs want to keep non-free, then there is no sense in having the social contract GR remove the words about the non-free issue, and we can have a clean GR which only does the nice cosmetic changes Branden has proposed. We can have both, even without the poll; one GR and one hostile amendment that get voted on at once. I personally would not see an informal poll as necessarily indicitive of how the results would play out in a formal vote. I suspect others would share that sentiment. -- John
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free, non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that difficult. I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate in the poll? Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. That's another option which doesn't require a poll. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this since 2000 :-) -- John
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good administrative writer, but was thinking about something like : begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Why not ? Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole speculation on what the DDs really want and enable us to go forward constructively than all this mess that is surrounding this question, and second, we can then propose a 3:1 social contract GR, which will benefit from an idea of what will happen later. Like, you know, if the majority of the DDs want to keep non-free, then there is no sense in having the social contract GR remove the words about the non-free issue, and we can have a clean GR which only does the nice cosmetic changes Branden has proposed. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free, non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that difficult. Yeah, but then you have to split social contract into social contract small changes, or social contract small change + hidden removal of non-free. Also, the majority is not the same. For example, if a majority of DDs want to can non-free, i guess some oponents of the social contract change would feel compeled to vote for it. I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? Something needs to happen now, and the non-free issue is the one we need to decide over. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate in the poll? Yep, sure, i guess the dishonest among us will vote let's keep non-free now, and then after the GR pass, remove it. Would not work though, since if we vote to keep non-free, there is no point in voting the non-cosmetic social contract changes. Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. That's another option which doesn't require a poll. Ok, i will propose it then, if someone helps me cleaning up the draft proposal who speaks better english than me, and who writes better in general. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this since 2000 :-) But quarreling like fish merchant here won't help. The idea is to discipline ourself enough to start the flamage and discussion once the vote has been submitted, not like we do now. Friendly, Sven Luther -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : --- start non-free removal GR draft Provided the social contract get's ammended by a 3:1 majority to let us act accordyingly to this vote, we will now take a decision about what we want to do about the non-free archive on the debian servers. Proposition A : Keep non-free. Rationale : non-free is usefull for our user who needs it, as a bridge for a given piece of software who may one day become non-free, and for other reasons. So let's keep it. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition B : Remove non-free. Rationale : non-free is the epythoma of evil, let's purge it from our servers :)) (well, not seriously, but you are better placed to provide a rationale here). (Needs a social contract change though) Proposition C : Remove the non-free packages case by case. Rationale : the non-freeness of the packages in non-free is of varying quality, so let's look at it case per case, and remove those that have no chance to ever becoming free, those that are badly maintained and nobody cares about and those that have a free replacement. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition D : Remove the none-free packages case by case, but also provide infrastructure for actively making non-free packages not needed anymore. Rationale : same as above, but we additionnally will provide guidance to users of non-free packages about what free alternative best suits them, and an infrastructure for discussing licencing changes with upstream and/or orienting interested developers to where they can help free the package or improve the alternatives. It would be the non-free maintainers packages responsability to manage this, on infrastructure provided by the debian project. (Social contract could be changed to mention we support users, but actively encourage people to migrate from non-free software to free replacements). Proposition E : Remove non-free, as well as any hint of non-free packages still hiding in main, the whole of contrib and all non-free packag installers. Rationale : after all, why show favoritism for the packages in main whose we were not honest enough to move into non-free, contrib is of no use without main, and installer of non-free stuff are of no use without the non-free stuff they install, and thus don't belong into debian. --- end non-free removal GR draft Friendly, Sven
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5 different, mutually exclusive, options. Don't be stupid, it is evident that you will rank the different options. Consider the below. How would you interpret a yes vote to the entire text? And how would you interpret a no vote to the entire text? (Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.) There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it. I asked for help on the wording, not more langue de bois, as we say in french. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. Let's vote about whether to vote or to poll. Or would it be better to organize a poll about that issue? --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar +31-30-253 4499 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death another year or so ? No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no poll to delay it. -- John
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up. And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do. Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their preferences appropriately? Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. Something like : provided the social contract gets ammended, we would like to do ... blah blah ... about non-free. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good administrative writer, but was thinking about something like : begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. -- John
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good administrative writer, but was thinking about something like : begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single situation in which that will actually resolve anything. Uh, that's the whole point -- you do non-binding things when you're not ready to resolve them. That's useful for working out what you want we want to do; eg questions that arise from removing non-free that haven't been resolved yet include: keep or drop contrib, drop all of non-free or just restrict it more than we do atm, is anyone going to setup a separate archive for non-free stuff. 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 can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it. What do you thinkg ? Something like : I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5 different, mutually exclusive, options. Consider the below. How would you interpret a yes vote to the entire text? And how would you interpret a no vote to the entire text? (Granted, Condorcet doesn't use yes/no, but the principle applies.) There is a way to do this per the constitution... the below isn't it. -- John --- start non-free removal GR draft Provided the social contract get's ammended by a 3:1 majority to let us act accordyingly to this vote, we will now take a decision about what we want to do about the non-free archive on the debian servers. Proposition A : Keep non-free. Rationale : non-free is usefull for our user who needs it, as a bridge for a given piece of software who may one day become non-free, and for other reasons. So let's keep it. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition B : Remove non-free. Rationale : non-free is the epythoma of evil, let's purge it from our servers :)) (well, not seriously, but you are better placed to provide a rationale here). (Needs a social contract change though) Proposition C : Remove the non-free packages case by case. Rationale : the non-freeness of the packages in non-free is of varying quality, so let's look at it case per case, and remove those that have no chance to ever becoming free, those that are badly maintained and nobody cares about and those that have a free replacement. (No social contract change is needed) Proposition D : Remove the none-free packages case by case, but also provide infrastructure for actively making non-free packages not needed anymore. Rationale : same as above, but we additionnally will provide guidance to users of non-free packages about what free alternative best suits them, and an infrastructure for discussing licencing changes with upstream and/or orienting interested developers to where they can help free the package or improve the alternatives. It would be the non-free maintainers packages responsability to manage this, on infrastructure provided by the debian project. (Social contract could be changed to mention we support users, but actively encourage people to migrate from non-free software to free replacements). Proposition E : Remove non-free, as well as any hint of non-free packages still hiding in main, the whole of contrib and all non-free packag installers. Rationale : after all, why show favoritism for the packages in main whose we were not honest enough to move into non-free, contrib is of no use without main, and installer of non-free stuff are of no use without the non-free stuff they install, and thus don't belong into debian. --- end non-free removal GR draft Friendly, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
