On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:47:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from > > > > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > What are the scare quotes for? Did we not already have this discussion? > > No, but it obviously suits you to think so, judging by your inapposite > > example. > > *sigh*
My feelings exactly, given that you trimmed away the parts of my reply that counter your thesis. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200006/msg00040.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00257.html > http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/branden_amendments/ Yes, I misunderstood the SRP with regard to the amendment process in 2000, and made an inappropriate charge of dealing in bad faith, for which I apologized, which you claimed to accept. Are you trying to accuse me of backpedalling, or something? Note the following text of mine which you eliminated from your reply: > > > If you have the options: > > > > > > [a] Remove non-free clause, editorial changes > > > [b] Don't change the social contract, support non-free more! > > > [c] Further Discussion > > > > That doesn't have anything to do with the scenario I'm talking about. > > [b] is not an irrelevant or cosmetic change to [a]; it's a wholesale > > rejection of [a] and is squarely on point. I'd expect it to appear on > > the ballot if 6 people feel strongly enough about that position. That hypothetical maps very cleanly to the actual scenario we had in 2000, with John Goerzen's proposal as analogous to [a], and your proposed amendment as [b]. Therefore my understanding of the amendment process is as it was a year ago, and consistent with your own as of 2000, and presumably 2002. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll work from the premise that you haven't since changed your mind. So, what, exactly, is your point? That I was in error and subsequently admitted to it? Stop the presses! Is it preferable to attempt to conceal one's past mistakes? > Lose the scare quotes, and lose the attitude. Let's quote some more text you snipped away, like the rest of very first quoted sentence in this mail. > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from > > > > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing > > > > but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations? This sort of amendment is like [b] above how, exactly? I don't see much resemblance. "[b] is not an irrelevant or cosmetic change to [a]; it's a wholesale rejection of [a] and is squarely on point. I'd expect it to appear on the ballot if 6 people feel strongly enough about that position." Now, let's consider an example of the kind of amendment I *am* talking about. > > [b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture > > ] A.2.2: The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote > ] on that resolution and all related amendments. > > Unrelated amendments should not be voted on in the same ballot. I have no > idea why you would imagine that Debian developers would try such idiocy, > nor why you would imagine the secretary would play along with it. Perhaps because the Standard Resolution Procedure says so? Let's go back again to some text of mine you elided from your reply, which quoted the Constitution: > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > A.1. Discussion and Amendment > > > > > > > > 3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the > > > > sponsors of the resolution does not agree with the > > > > acceptance by the proposer of a formal amendment, the > > > > amendment remains as an amendment and will be voted on. [The above text, as far as I can tell, has remained unchanged since version 1.0 of the Constitution. We are now up to version 1.2.] Is it your position that "will be voted on" has an implicit "someday" after it? I don't think that's the most obvious or literal reading of the Constitution. Maybe we can ask Ian Jackson, and this time he'll wait less than three years before clarifying his authorial intent. :) > > > And I know we've already had this discussion. > > No, we haven't. > > No, So, you were incorrect, and after hurling invective like: On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 02:29:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > And I know we've already had this discussion. Are you going to be > > > spreading FUD about every resolution that passes that you don't > > > like? You admit your error and proceed with more invective: > this particular range of paranoid lunacy is completely new. > Congratulations! I guess the lesson here is that you're never wrong except when you agree with me, right? I daresay my own style of apologizing (thanks for the link): On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:15:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Indeed. I'm sorry for the overwrought tone of my objections to your use > of what I understand now to be a legitimate tactic under the Standard > Resolution Procedure in 2000. is a bit more graceful. You mileage varies, no doubt. Given the above, who has the more problematic attitude? -- G. Branden Robinson | I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux | confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
