On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the > >> opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but > >> punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid > >> viewpoint. > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, remove non-free > > [ 1 ] Change social contract, keep non-free > > [ 2 ] Don't change social contract > > [ 3 ] Further Discussion > Umm, that is not quite the same thing. Consider the case where > there are 400 voters that want to punt.
Depends who they want to punt to. If they're happy to punt to other developers (ie, the ones that do express a preference between the first two options), or to the DPL (the elector with a casting vote), there's no problem. > And suppose there is an explicit option > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free > [ ] Change social contract, keep non-free > [ ] Change social contract, punt on archive In which case it's better to say "Change social contract, allow ftpmaster to have discretion about whether non-free remains in the archive". Personally, I think it's a daft idea to convert an issue in the social contract to an administrative decision. > In your ballot, the 400 people vote: > 400 x 1123 > Suppose there is one person who does not want to punt; and votes: > 1234 > None free would be removed. Yes, because everyone but one person punted, so that one person gets left holding the ball. > In the new ballot, it would be > 400 x 55123 > 15523 > And things would really be punted. To a different person, who would still have to make the decision. (And honestly, I don't think that's a plausible vote. How can you prefer to have the social contract ammended, and non-free kept or removed at the whim of ftpmaster; yet not find it sensible to amend the social contract then remove non-free, nor to amend the social contract then keep non-free? 400x12234 would have the same result and be much more believable) In any event, personally, I don't think there are 400 people in Debian who don't have a preference whether we want to distribute non-free or not. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgpGqUkhWeo0B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
