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]
