On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:28:22PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip rationale 13] > This by itself does not matter as much as you think it does, > since the voter has no choice here.
Well, then, how much *does* it matter? Why did you include rationale statements in the text of the ballot for the disambiguation of 4.1.5? Also, you elided part of the message to which you replied, and I would like to hear your thoughts on it: > > If the Social Contract had a provision proscribing the Debian > > Account Managers from disabling developers' accounts, and we voted > > by a landslide to remove that proscription, would it follow that the > > Debian Account Managers should immediately disable all developers' > > accounts? > > > > After all, they'd have a mandate, right? Please explain to me how the above is materially different from the proposal to remove clause 5 from the Social Contract. > Heck, I know that the rationale said that, but it does not affect my > intent. So, people overwhelmingly voting to remove clause 5 would > still mean a mandate for removal of non free. I continue to disagree with this analysis. It means a mandate for removing the presence or absence of "non-free" from the scope of the Social Contract. There are plenty of things that Debian does that aren't directly addressed by the Social Contract. > Now, if this were part of the ballot; if I could chose > > a) remove clause 5, but do not remove non-free from the archive > b) remove clause 5, and clear the way to remove non-free as well > > then yes, we can remove clause 5, and clearly know whether or > not there was a mandate. I'm confused; you just said we clearly know anyway -- "people overwhelmingly voting to remove clause 5 would still mean a mandate for removal of non free.". I mean, my proposal either means what I say it does or it doesn't, but either way, its meaning is clear, right? And if that's not the case, why doesn't my rationale statement matter? > Lacking this, I think people shall vote for > the proposal on its merits, and their intentions are not limited to > what the rationale says is proper motivation and intent. Of course not. But it's generally unwise to leap to conclusions. In the text of my proposed amended Social Contract, what *forbids* us from distributing non-free software as something other than "our Distribution"? > Lacking a clear choice made by voters, no amount of "people > who chose this proposal believe in chaos theory" style assertions in > the rationale carry any weight. I agree, which is why I do not understand why it makes sense to assume that someone's failure to say "I shall wax my car at least once a year" means "I shall NOT wax my car at least once a year". > > Which of us is expressing the lower opinion of the electorate, > > again? > > I certainly am not. You seem to think that stating something > in a rationale binds peoples motivations; Not true at all. A rationale statement can serve a few purposes: 1) It can attempt to persuade people to adopt the position the rationale supports; 2) It can help clarify the intentions of the author of the position so that others can assist him or her in expressing him- or herself more clearly; 3) It can be used as reference material for understanding the scope of and motivations behind the proposition in question. Item 3) is most important when studying why a proposition passed or failed retrospectively. However, such information is seldom more than suggestive, and almost never dispositive -- because, as you note, a rationale cannot bind voters' motivations, and they may have reasons for accepting or rejecting a proposition that are wholly irrelevant to the stated rationale(s) for that proposition. > like they were sheep to change their reasons for voting just because > you said so in the rationale. Is it your implication that a person who is capable of having his or her mind changed through persuasive argument is a "sheep"? If not, why have you constructed this position and ascribed it to me? It is terribly unflattering, and does not seem apropos for a serious discussion. -- G. Branden Robinson | We either learn from history or, Debian GNU/Linux | uh, well, something bad will [EMAIL PROTECTED] | happen. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Bob Church
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
