Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian > > counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are > > convinced they have been deceived. > > > Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes > > them often win. > > Referring to 20% of your fellow developers[1] as a "very loud [extremist] > minority" is absurd, particularly when only 5% of the remaining "majority" > could be bothered to vote against. You may not agree with the decision that > was taken, but insulting your peers for their views on the question just
Not all pros in this GR are what I call extremists. I suspect some of them did not expect the consequences of modifying the SC that way. After all, weren't they editorial changes? Whether or not you don't like the silly game I played with them (yes, I lost my time playing this stupid indulging game) in the bug report it pointed you too, doesn't make the bug report less silly w.r.t. DFSG interpretation. I stand that this interpretation come from fundamentalists. > makes you look like an ass. If you really think this vote was stolen from > the majority, put your money where your mouth is -- find five other Where the hell did I say it was stolen from the majority? I just said you cannot draw conclusions about the consent of 1000 developers, out of a 3:1 majority among 200 developers. Period. I'm not happy with the results, but I've never questions the validity of the vote. > developers who agree with you and put up a GR to overturn the Social > Contract changes. Encourage your fellow developers to vote -- *regardless* > of which way they're going to vote -- so we can finally put this question to > rest. > > BTW, votes in Debian *are* public, you know; and > <http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt> clearly shows you > voted in favor of modifying the Social Contract. Could you make up your > mind which vocal minority you intend to be a part of, please? I thought it was editorial changes, but it looks it was not. I thought there were some bits of common sense with interpreting DFSG, so modifying the SC was OK. But it seems _some_ people wants that "every byte in main shall be covered by a free software license, whatsoever". I think it is insane, so modifying the SC was not a good idea after all. > > Dictorship of Minorities shall be opposed. > > So shall Running of the Mouth on mailing lists. Sorry, I don't get it. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
