Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as > a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our > future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the > DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thorough, point-by-point > rebuttal of the position statement was given on -vote or -legal (to the > best of my knowledge; I'd love to be wrong). [...]
More than unfortunate, it makes that ambition impossible without telepathy or further surveying, as far as I can see. There seems little point just guessing what motives produced a pi=3 statement. It should be noted that even though the Standard Resolution Procedure resolved the disagreement, a 211:145 (roughly 3:2) split when comparing the first two options is hardly a great consensus. There remains a deep division over whether FDL'd works follow DFSG. Personally, I find it disappointing that so many people ranked opposite views high, then FD below them. I think the "no, no matter what" description of FD in the ballot is unhelpful and deters compromise attempts. I don't think we've insincere voting patterns, but strange ones:- ; grep -c 'V: 12..' vote_001_tally.txt 67 ; grep -c 'V: 11..' vote_001_tally.txt 5 ; grep -c 'V: 21..' vote_001_tally.txt 59 Looks to me like voting for a resolution, no matter what it says, rather than making two opposing views seek compromise. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]