MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It should be noted that even though the Standard Resolution > Procedure resolved the disagreement, a 211:145 (roughly 3:2) split > when comparing the first two options is hardly a great consensus. > There remains a deep division over whether FDL'd works follow DFSG. > > Personally, I find it disappointing that so many people ranked > opposite views high, then FD below them. I think the "no, > no matter what" description of FD in the ballot is unhelpful > and deters compromise attempts. I don't think we've insincere > voting patterns, but strange ones:- > > ; grep -c 'V: 12..' vote_001_tally.txt > 67 > ; grep -c 'V: 11..' vote_001_tally.txt > 5 > ; grep -c 'V: 21..' vote_001_tally.txt > 59 > > Looks to me like voting for a resolution, no matter what it > says, rather than making two opposing views seek compromise.
I think the sentiment that produced this voting pattern was a desire not to see any more emails about the GFDL. For example, Anthony Towns wrote [1]: I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above "Further Discussion" Essentially, voter fatigue has beaten out Further Discussion. I would consider that a flaw in the voting method, though not all may agree. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00415.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
