On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 18:03:30) > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:18:19PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 10:02:16) > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:06:01AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > > [...] it lacks a detail I find crucial: > > > > > Explicitly spelling out whether or not images containing non-free bits > > > > > are official part of Debian or not. Personally I find it obvious that > > > > > anything that would not be allowed into main also would not be treated > > > > > as official part of Debian, > > > > > > > > I share the same concern as you: Steve's proposal would mean that > > > > installers > > > > containing non-free firmware become official part of Debian. My text > > > > does not. > > > > > > > > > If Bart chose to extend the proposal to include that such media > > > > > containing non-free bits (although permitted "alongside with the free > > > > > media) would *not* be considered official part of Debian, then I would > > > > > endorse the amended proposal. > > > > > > > > That would be repeating what's already true. My text includes only > > > > things that > > > > I propose to change. So what is off/unofficially today, remains that. > > > > It's like > > > > "the name of the project remains Debian". Why would I mention that. > > > > > > > > Does this cover your concern? > > > > > > It clarifies that my reading matches your intended reading. Thanks! > > > > Haa wonderful. > > > > > Unfortunately it does not cover my concern that the text is ambiguous - > > > i.e. despite intent your choice of words can lead voters to vote for > > > this text but with varying expectations, which is a very bad situation. > > > > What exactly in my text do you mean? > > The part you *didn't* include (so I cannot point at it or quote it) ;-)
Indeed, I see now that it's the point you made earlier. > > > > > > > I still urge you to make explicit what will not change. Perhaps borrow > > > from Simons text, if you (like me) like that? > > > > Simon Richter's text would permit the Debian project to replace the free > > installer by a non-free one. My text clearly mentions that the free > > installer > > is still there. Didn't you prefer the free installer to remain available? > > Ha! Indeed Simon Richter's text omit explicitly mentioning that a > non-free installer is in _addition_ to the already free one - Indeed, it's a difference that is easily overlooked. > although > that intent is clear from his more elaborate text before the concrete > draft ballot text. Very true, it's not in the draft ballot text, my point exactly. > > ...or paraphrased in your style: His text doesn't say "replace". I wrote "would permit to replace", not "will replace". > > Perhaps you see now - through an example not your own - how being > explicit helps avoid ambiguity? True. Humans tend to read what's not written. That said, it is hard to prevent all possible unintended interpretations. > > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
