On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:14:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
>> disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
>> Jackson pointed out, was the least disruptive of the lot; but the
>> voting actually went like so:
>>
>> Option 1 defeats Option 2 by 95 Option 1 defeats Option 3 by 99
>> Option 1 defeats Option 4 by 162 Option 3 defeats Option 2 by 54
>> Option 2 defeats Option 4 by 104 Option 3 defeats Option 4 by 90
> I think that's a hasty conclusion. Let's recall how much time
> passed between the first big flamewar on this subject and the time
> of the actual vote. I think at least three factors were at work in
> making Proposal A seem like the "safe, conservative" option.
You seem to assume that the vast majority of the electorate are
sheep who blindly follow the latest demagogue to wax forth on any
subject. You have concluded, despite the past track record to the
contrary, that people shall not vote with the best interest of Debian
at heart, and in an effort to come to common ground, and cooperate
with each other, rather than push their own agenda in exclusion of
any others.
Voting, and majorities, are mere mechanisms to determine rough
consensus. We have, in the past, managed to come to an agreement --
often so, in fact. However, you continue to imagine that people have
in it for you, or any proposal you come up with, and the
determination we make is merely the result of which charismatic
person spoke to us about it. Like we have no brains.
You certainly have come forth with a fair deal of
convoluted reasoning to explain why people voted as they did --
including the fact that that they did so because certain people did
not fight the option that won; the parsimonious explanation, though,
is that perhaps they really p;referred the option? Not because it was
conservative, or not, but because it was in line with their own
(gasp) opinion?
I think, despite your protestations to the contrary, we can
still come to an agreement, that we are still reasonable people who
are trying to create the best operating system possible; and
discussion are not a bitter fight to the end to have our own way or
the high way.
manoj
--
Suppose for a moment that the automobile industry had developed at the
same rate as computers and over the same period: how much cheaper and
more efficient would the current models be? If you have not already
heard the analogy, the answer is shattering. Today you would be able
to buy a Rolls-Royce for $2.75, it would do three million miles to the
gallon, and it would deliver enough power to drive the Queen Elizabeth
II. And if you were interested in miniaturization, you could place
half a dozen of them on a pinhead. Christopher Evans
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
