On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not > > the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. > For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. "Keep non-free" > means "nothing changes" and "Further discussion" means "nothing > changes" (see below for conclusions).
No, that's again not the case. If a vote reverts to further discussion,
that's _exactly_ what should take place. It means that none of the options
proposed were the desired outcome of the project, and to move forward, we
need to either work out some new options, or better explain the ones we
have.
By contrast, if the project decides to stick with what we currently have,
futher discussion is not a desirable activity: it means the project has
looked at the issues, thought them through, and decided how to deal with
them; further discussion of the same issues is not useful to the project,
and since the decision has already been made, is going to be a waste of
time for the proposers.
> I don't see why this:
> > [ 1 ] Keep non-free
> > [ 2 ] Drop non-free
> > [ 3 ] Further discussion
> indicates what you describe. Surely it says:
> "I would rather maintain the status quo than drop non-free. I would
> rather drop non-free than maintain the status quo"
No, it says "I'm satisfied that we've thought these proposals through,
so I don't think further discussion on this matter is useful. Of the
proposals, I would prefer to keep non-free."
Likewise,
[ 1 ] Keep non-free
[ 3 ] Drop non-free
[ 2 ] Further discussion
says "I'd like to keep non-free, but I don't think the proposal to drop
non-free has appropriately considered all the relevant issues, or the
consequences of that action". You might vote that way if you strongly
think that the proposal should specifically deal with what happens with
contrib, eg.
> I *think* that you're describing a scenario with a large number of
> insincere voters, though.
No, I'm describing a situation where the voting system is being used in
the way it was designed to be used.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
