On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 02:29:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably > > > wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails. > > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from > > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > What are the scare quotes for? Did we not already have this discussion?
No, but it obviously suits you to think so, judging by your inapposite
example.
> > The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> > voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> > discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> > ballot is to decide whether we're accepting or rejecting *substantive*
> > amendments to the Social Contract".)
>
> No, that's completely wrong.
>
> If you have the options:
>
> [a] Remove non-free clause, editorial changes
> [b] Don't change the social contract, support non-free more!
> [c] Further Discussion
That doesn't have anything to do with the scenario I'm talking about.
[b] is not an irrelevant or cosmetic change to [a]; it's a wholesale
rejection of [a] and is squarely on point. I'd expect it to appear on
the ballot if 6 people feel strongly enough about that position.
An apropos [b] to the discussion, which it appears you haven't actually
read before launching into your usual stream of self-righteous,
belligerent, and belittling invective, would be:
[b] Debian should retain support for the m68k architecture
(Actually, that's a bad example, as I wouldn't lay odds on m68k being
*more* popular than non-free. :) )
Better:
[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social
Contract by a landslide -- *if people vote sincerely*.
> And I know we've already had this discussion.
No, we haven't.
> Are you going to be spreading FUD about every resolution that passes
> that you don't like?
Are you going to continue to substitute personal attacks for relevant
discussion?
No, wait, I already know the answer to that.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Don't use nuclear weapons to
Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
