Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, I saw Brenden's comment that he might propose a swap (but didn't want to
> talk about it), I just failed to realise that the constitution said that we
> should assume that the terms of the vote were changed by him saying that ;-)
There was discussion of swapping the official and unofficial images
for a number of submissions to both the Gimp contest and the logo
vote. Not just the swirl. Many people said, "what if I like <X>, but
want them swapped?" It's an idea that's been in the air the whole
time. I have no idea how you managed to avoid hearing about it until
Branden's proposal.
The idea of a swap was never tied to the swirl, per se. It was
something that was bruited about as a general possibility by a number
of people.
> The reason you know nothing about Modified Swirl is that it was only
> mentioned on debian-vote, to which few people were subscribed at the
> time.
That's only part of the reason. A bigger one is that I had no real
interest in *which* logo we chose, and wasn't planning to (and didn't)
vote.
> > Is it a
> > matter of being "disenfranchised," or just NOT PAYING ATTENTION?
> I was paying attention as it happens, I even wasted about an hour before
> voting, looking for a definition of Modified Swirl.
But you didn't realize that there was a possibility of a swap vote,
even though it had been being discussed since the submissions to the
*Gimp Contest* started coming in? I'm sticking to my not-paying-
attention theory. :-p ;-)
> Generally, I agree with you, and I could have just voted for the
> swap, and got what I want as a result.
> So why am I still ranting ?
> Because next time the voting system is abused in this way, it might
> be on an important issue.
Abused? This is *NOT* something that came suddenly out of the blue.
This is something that had been discussed for a long time!
> You clearly don't care about our voting system
No, I don't care *which* *logo* we have. I do care about the voting
system, thank you very much, Mr. Arrogant. I just don't think it's as
badly flawed as you seem to. I think we're still shaking the bugs out
of the system, and waiting for people to get up to speed.
Too many people seem to want others to do the work of thinking for
them. Too many people seem to want to be spoon-fed information. Too
many people want *other* volunteers to do all the work for them.
But if you think it's so bad, propose something better. Quit whining
about the bottle (I actually rather like it), and move on to something
that actually matters, if that's how you feel.
> it because I can see it being used to justify decisions supposedly
> taken in the names of the developers, when less than a quarter of
> the electorate currently vote (well less than a sixth in this vote)
This is a volunteer organization, and a lot of people are more
interested in coding than voting. What are we supposed to do? Hold a
gun to their heads and make 'em vote? Propose something better which
makes as much sense as the current system, and I'll listen.
But your whole thesis that this vote, in particular, is some sort of
attempt to subvert the voting system is, quite frankly, a crock. This
vote is a popular idea that *anyone* who was *actually* paying
attention knew might well come. This vote is the possibility we knew
we might have, which we allowed for in order to get logo2 on the table
in a reasonable amount of time (the alternative was to submit all the
contoversial pairs in both swapped and non-swapped versions).
Your mythical logo4 and logo5 votes are *not* something that was
discussed months ahead of time, and quite frankly, I don't believe
they'll happen. And if they do, well, then, quite frankly, it may be
a sign that Debian has outlived its usefulness. I don't believe that
any change in the voting system is going to affect people's natural
tendency to whine about choices they don't like, and to complain that
other volunteers aren't working hard enough.
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
