> > The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in > > perspective.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:02:25PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Then that part should be made conditional, as in Andrew's editorial GR > proposal. Why? In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for your statement. > > If you want me to drop those from my proposal, you have to convince me > > that dropping them is a good idea. Your belief that they're not > > related > > is more, in my opinion, a matter of your focus than anything I care > > about. > > I want you to split this into editorial and policy changes and stop > trying to get both through in one vote. Why? I understand that you want me to. That's not sufficient reason for me to make that change. Note also that you are also allowed to make proposals. > > [2] I'm more in favor of that proposal than his other proposal, so > > I have less reason to introduce an amended version. > > I think this is the dominant reason, as the other is paper-thin. You > are trying to increase support for your objection by combining it with > other desirable changes, some of which also appear in Andrew's > editorial GR proposal. More generally, this is the philosophy of choosing the best option. And even if you stomp your foot, I'm proposing the option I want to see win. > >> Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: > >> 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; > > A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > > do. > > You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking > you a question, which you did not answer. You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is not testable. I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief. > >> 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; > > A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > > do. > > I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and > introducing more tension within the social contract. And what is this "substantial change"? > >> 3. the request for redistributors to check non-free licences; > > A change in what we ask other people to do, but not a change in what > > we do. > > Fine, but what is your reason to stop making that request? I made the statement more generic. A wide variety of people -- not just CD manufacturers -- might have problems with distributing non-free. The underlying caution is still present, it's just not narrow. > >> 4. the commitment to provide infrastructure; > > A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > > do. > > It makes it simpler to change in the future. Some changes yes, some changes no. > >> 5. transition plan for non-free packages. > > A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > > do. > > I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy. That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal. > >> While I think the introduction of the last two is laudable, the > >> first seems > >> questionable and I dislike losing the other parts. > > > > Ok, I guess I understand that that's how you feel. > > > > Note that, if you otherwise like my proposal or some aspect of my > > proposal > > more than Andrew's or some aspect of Andrew's but this bothers you, > > you're > > free to propose your own amendment which fixes the problems you see. > > I am reluctant to play amendment stacking until I am sure you cannot > be convinced to do the honourable thing and restrict yourself to > clause 5 in this amendment. Please stop trying to alter clauses 1-4 in > this amendment. I disagree that this is "the honourable thing". I think that splitting this into multiple elections is a big mistake. I don't think that making a mistake simply because someone else is making it is a good thing. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
