Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
>>>>> "AT" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AT> Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or AT> less in the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an AT> extra week for DPL elections seems unnecessary. DPL elections is the most complicated voting with many options (candidates) and many documents to study (platforms, rebuttals + discussion). Perhaps I'm not the only one who would prefer to retain the extra week to get better opportunity to participate in DPL voting? Regards, Milan Zamazal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nuance Regarding RMS
> "JS" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: JS> Question is, this being a process to compose a ballot for a JS> vote: How to transform those observations into a text for the JS> ballot? Or if that is absurd, how else to proceed (other than JS> shrug and let the boting process continue disregarding those JS> observations? I think “The Debian Project will not issue a public statement” and “None of the above” are good enough ballot options for the purpose. And definitely much better than voting about one’s weirdness or malice, directly or indirectly. Regards, Milan
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
> "DS" == Dmitry Smirnov writes: DS> So many man-hours were lost on this GR already in the midst of DS> the pre-release freeze, just to name one problem... DS> We are on a slippery slope of turning Debian into political DS> project. One good thing about this GR is that it will show us how much support the various vocal groups actually have. I had to go through a lot of annoying stuff again due to this GR (unlike technical GRs, it can’t be easily ignored, left to be decided by more knowledgeable DDs and then accept the outcome whatever it is) but it caused me to reflect on human behavior, society and Debian again and now I’d like to know the answer about Debian. Debian already is a political project to some extent, if nothing else then in its stance on free and proprietary software. Let’s see how far it is with some other things. Whether we’d like asking the question or not, we’ll get the answer and can further proceed based on facts rather than impressions we could get from debates. Regards, Milan
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
> "SM" == Steve McIntyre writes: SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful >>> theoretical >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a >>> miserable fuckup in the end. >>> >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would >>> want to be leaders in such regimes. >>> >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. >> >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate. Yes, please. >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should >> be "cancelled". Free speech is a beautiful working practice but >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to >> "cancel" free speech. SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please SM> accept that and leave it there? Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech. I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways. Regards, Milan
Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority
> "MK" == Matthias Klumpp writes: MK> I did actually read this as satire and was quite amused by it I’m not amused by it. I liked the 1st April joke, but this is not fun anymore and the fact that someone as respectful as Enrico does that makes me thinking about some ballot options in a different light. I’d like to get rid of this matter and vote ASAP but considering something important and related can happen in two weeks (e.g. the whole FSF board may resign), is it possible to change a vote later during the voting period? According to the constitution, 4.2.6, “The Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change their votes.” but I can’t see this information in the ballot e-mail. Regards, Milan
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
My analysis is that this GR is simply insane. The previous GR (2004 vote 003) was presented as editorial amendments, so it can hardly have significant influence on our releases. From this point of view proposals A, B, C, E make no sense to me. I can't see any good reason to support proposal F -- Social Contract already defines our goals which we may successfully meet or we may (despite our best efforts) fail on them (we may fail to release sarge without any DFSG problems or we may fail to release any further stable version at all). Proposal D may make sense if one feels fooled by presenting the previous GR as editorial amendments and wants to revert it for that reason. But in any case, I don't think the changes to DFSG are wrong, so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by making and reverting changes without really good reasons. IMHO the proper response to this insane GR is --1 (without actually performing Further Discussion after the voting ends). And I won't repeat my mistake of ignoring the votings I don't consider significant enough. Milan Zamazal -- I think any law that restricts independent use of brainpower is suspect. -- Kent Pitman in comp.lang.lisp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
>>>>> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RM> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 08:47:56PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: >> My analysis is that this GR is simply insane. RM> You think it's out of touch with reality? Yes, I feel it as a sort of artificial or exaggerated problem. RM> The previous GR eliminated ambiguity from the social contract. RM> Do you disagree? No. RM> Our previous release policy was valid under an interpretation of RM> the old social contract which is not present in the new social RM> contract. RM> Do you disagree? I don't think the clarification changed anything in the spirit of the Social Contract. E.g. while the old SC spoke about "software" and not "works", a lot of non-free documents was still placed in non-free and not main. I think the sarge related SC/DFSG problems would demand the same attention under the old SC, despite solution of some of them could be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or reverting the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me. Regards, Milan Zamazal -- It's amazing how much better you feel once you've given up hope. (unknown source) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
>>>>> "ES" == Eike \"zyro\" Sauer writes: ES> Milan Zamazal schrieb: >> so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by >> making and reverting changes without really good reasons. ES> Adult people should not be afraid of undoing bad decisions, and ES> "We will not hide problems". I don't think the decision was bad, I think it has only raised bad consequences. And those don't make (IMO) a sufficiently good reason to revert the decision itself. Regards, Milan Zamazal -- The rush to reproduce Microsofts window environment seems to overshadow the design process of determining what a window environment should be, and what its ultimate users will want. -- Barry Fishman in gnu.misc.discuss -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
>>>>> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RM> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:41:55AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: >> be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the >> wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or >> reverting the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me. RM> At least three of the ballot options do not have this character. One of the three is what I'm going to vote for. I've already mentioned my objections to Proposal F. As for Proposal E, you're right it doesn't modify the previous GR, but I still don't like it -- it pretends changes in the social contract and adds another (possibly useless) Foundation Document. Regards, Milan Zamazal -- "Having GNU Emacs is like having a dragon's cave of treasures." Robert J. Chassell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
