Commentaires sur : About the « condorcet » votes

Par : MJR's slef-reflections

MJR's slef-reflections — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:56:18 +0000

Rank FD High

Any compromise found from that insincere voting will not last long. Voting closes this weekend: if you have ranked FD below options you dislike, revote now if you want to find a real compromise. …

Par : Buxy

Buxy — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:03:56 +0000

Glandium, option 3 says « the GFDL conforms to the spirit of the DFSG ». It doesn’t mean that we’ll take the same decision with even dumber licenses. So my interpretation of option 3 is *not* « as far as some modifications are allowed, the license doesn’t fail DFSG #3″ but rather « since the GFDL only forbids modifications of secondary part, we can decide that the GFDL doesn’t fail DFSG #3″.

All that said, unmodifiable sections still suck and that’s why I’ve put Adeato’s amendment first.

Par : glandium

glandium — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:02:47 +0000

Substancially, option 3 says that as far as the license allows (some) modifications, it doesn’t fail DFSG #3.
Example of a license text that would allow (some) modifications: You may ditribute modified versions of this software provided that your modifications happen in the do_nothing() function.

Par : MJ Ray

MJ Ray — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:15:54 +0000

FD = further discussion, not do nothing. If everyone chooses to do nothing for a while, they’re ignoring the result: try again to find agreement.

Par : Buxy

Buxy — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:11:06 +0000

Josselin, given the kind exchange that I had with Takatsugu, it’s clear that not everyone understands fully the principles of Condorcet voting, and it’s quite understandable. Most of us never used Condorcet voting for something else than Debian and most of us never learnt Condorcet voting at school.

But every time that I give *my opinion* you treat me of a fascist. Why the hell ? What’s so difficult about accepting that we have diverging opinions and stop insulting me each time that I open the mouth ?

Of course, FD == NOTA == do nothing. But let’s face it: we have disagreement that could hinder our progress to release etch in time and it’s better to take a decision (whatever it is) than to not take a decision. So, for me, ranking further discussion last is the best course of action given that most views are quite fairly represented on the ballot.

In response to Glandium, yes, IMO option 3 would not harm the project. Just like releasing sarge with the same documentation didn’t harm the project.

Par : glandium

glandium — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:29:53 +0000

So you consider option 3 would not harm the project ? OMFG.

Par : Josselin Mouette

Josselin Mouette — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:29:50 +0000

Please don’t judge other developers’ votes, this is a fascist tendency. They know how to vote, and they know how to rank their preferred options.

NOTA means: « do nothing ». If you disagree with a proposal, you surely prefer to do nothing than accepting the proposal.

Par : Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:56:29 +0000

I wonder if we shouldn’t require DD to vote and if they don’t participate in 2 or 3 consecutive votes, they shall be considered by the MIA team… it would be a kind of implicit “ping of maintainers”.

DDs are not required to vote, nor should they be. However, the MIA team does look at voting participation as one indication of activity from a maintainer.