* Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> [081218 20:51]:
> ehm? what? how is it un-democratic to have different votes for
> different things, targetted exactly to decide where something is
> allowed or not?
Then do different votes for different things. And put together what
belongs together.
But just having a "wait forever for something not specified so meaning
mostly everything" and "take one course of action", is only usefull if
you want exactly that output taken.
At least it would need to be "take this course of action" or "further
discussion". (And then the same votes for other possible decissions).
And then some way to solve the problem of taking a consistent solution,
which would most likely mean voting serially. And that means finding
some way to decide what to vote first.
> the specific outcome I want it to be sure that
> whatever the ballot results will be, we then know *exactly* what to do
> for lenny, something I don't believe it could be archive with the
> current ballot.
While I agree that current ballot is not very good at this, the
alternative ballot you suggest to take instead is not good either,
unless you want one specific outcome, by only taking one option and
one option almost noone might want. There are at least several more:
Releasing now with all non-free or undistributeable firmware removed.
Releasing now with all firmware with license to distribute removed.
Wait a specific time for some specific goals.
Just replacing with a "wait indefinitly for this" or "ignore everything at
all" is what I call un-democratic, when it is clear that the large
majority of people will prefer something else than those extremes.
Especially if it are not even all extremes, but just a limited number of
it.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
