What does FD Mean (was: Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»)

[Mathias Behrle]

* Russ Allbery: " Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's
  readmission to the FSF board»" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:49:21 -0700):

> Mathias Behrle  writes:
> 
> > I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
> > vote explicitely that nothing should be done on behalf of the project
> > and that further discussion is *not* needed.
> 
> I consider the naming of "further discussion" a wry joke on the fact that
> the above outcome is, uh, unlikely.  Good luck getting everyone in Debian
> to stop discussing something.

I am aware of the fact htat I won't stop discussions, but at least I do not
want to be forced to say 'further discussion' if I just want the contrary.
 
> I have no real objections to renaming "further discussion" to "none of the
> above"; I just doubt it would accomplish anything and therefore am not
> sure it's worth the effort.

I would be glad if we would put more precise options on the ballot as I put it
in my answer to Sam. Using 'None of the above' instead of 'FD' would be at
least a first step into that direction.

> And personally, not that anyone should make any decisions on this basis, I'm
> kind of fond of the self-aware joke. It's good for us as a project to poke
> fun at our own weaknesses, since it helps us keep them in mind.

Yes, but joke aside it gives me really a hard time to say FD if I want exactly
the contrary.




-- 

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Russ Allbery]

Mathias Behrle  writes:

> I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
> vote explicitely that nothing should be done on behalf of the project
> and that further discussion is *not* needed.

I consider the naming of "further discussion" a wry joke on the fact that
the above outcome is, uh, unlikely.  Good luck getting everyone in Debian
to stop discussing something.

I have no real objections to renaming "further discussion" to "none of the
above"; I just doubt it would accomplish anything and therefore am not
sure it's worth the effort.  And personally, not that anyone should make
any decisions on this basis, I'm kind of fond of the self-aware joke.
It's good for us as a project to poke fun at our own weaknesses, since it
helps us keep them in mind.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Mathias Behrle]

* Gunnar Wolf: " Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's
  readmission to the FSF board»" (Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:57:09 -0600):


Thank you Gunnar for pushing this forward.

> Nicolas Dandrimont dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:27:48PM +0200]:
> > > (...)
> > > [A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
> > > (proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal)
> > > 
> > > [B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies
> > > (proposed by Sruthi Chandran, currently proposal B)
> > > 
> > > [C] Discurage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading
> > > position (proposed by Santiago Ruano Rincón, currently proposal C)
> > > 
> > > [D] Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
> > > (proposed by Jonathan Wiltshire, currently proposal D)
> > > 
> > > [E] Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
> > > (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal E)
> > > 
> > > [F] Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io
> > > (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal A)
> > > (...)  
> > 
> > I would suggest moving proposal E to the top or to the bottom of the
> > ballot, as one can argue that this "status quo" option doesn't
> > really fit within the "condemn → support" axis you've proposed. I
> > think I agree with how the other options are ordered.  
> 
> Makes sense. OTOH, we usually take FD as "preserve status quo"; FD
> usually appears (and should appear this time as well, sorry for not
> capturing it in my ballot proposal) as the last option.

I don't get that. Is this really common sense that FD means/meant "preserve
status quo"? For me voting this option definitely should mean that further
discussion on the topic is needed.

> I understand, option E is not semantically identical to FD, but is
> equivalent in the way that it means "do nothing project-wide, either
> for or against".

I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
vote explicitely that nothing should be done on behalf of the project and that
further discussion is *not* needed.

I agree that option E as the counterpart to all other options should be first
or last, and my personal preference would be first.



-- 

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:53:30AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:29:06AM +0200]:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:06:49AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > Dear Debian Project Secretary,
> > > 
> > > Given the DPL authorized a shortened discussion period, and that, while
> > > said discussion period allowed for a wide range of voting choices to
> > > be accepted in the ballots, the tone of the discussion is highly
> > > confrontational and I judge we will not gain any further insights or
> > > wordings merely by giving it more time.
> > > 
> > > So, by following the Debian constitution (A.2), as a sponsor for one
> > > of the amendments, I call for a vote, and ask you to draft the
> > > corresponding ballot.
> > 
> > Please suggest names and maybe an order of the options.
> 
> Better done with the morning coffee than late at night :-)
> 
> I suggest the following options and ordering to appear on the ballot:
> 
> [A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
> (proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal)
> 
> [B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies
> (proposed by Sruthi Chandran, currently proposal B)
> 
> [C] Discurage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading 
> position
> (proposed by Santiago Ruano Rincón, currently proposal C)
> 
> [D] Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
> (proposed by Jonathan Wiltshire, currently proposal D)
> 
> [E] Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
> (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal E)
> 
> [F] Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io
> (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal A)

I've committed this to the webpage. The ballot will probably look
like:
[   ] Choice 1: Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
[   ] Choice 2: Call for Stallman's resignation from all FSF bodies
[   ] Choice 3: Discourage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a 
leading position
[   ] Choice 4: Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
[   ] Choice 5: Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in 
rms-support-letter.github.io
[   ] Choice 6: Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
[   ] Choice 7: Further Discussion


Kurt

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Gunnar Wolf]

Nicolas Dandrimont dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:27:48PM +0200]:
> > (...)
> > [A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
> > (proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal)
> > 
> > [B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies
> > (proposed by Sruthi Chandran, currently proposal B)
> > 
> > [C] Discurage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading 
> > position
> > (proposed by Santiago Ruano Rincón, currently proposal C)
> > 
> > [D] Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
> > (proposed by Jonathan Wiltshire, currently proposal D)
> > 
> > [E] Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
> > (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal E)
> > 
> > [F] Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io
> > (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal A)
> > (...)
> 
> I would suggest moving proposal E to the top or to the bottom of the
> ballot, as one can argue that this "status quo" option doesn't
> really fit within the "condemn → support" axis you've proposed. I
> think I agree with how the other options are ordered.

Makes sense. OTOH, we usually take FD as "preserve status quo"; FD
usually appears (and should appear this time as well, sorry for not
capturing it in my ballot proposal) as the last option.

I understand, option E is not semantically identical to FD, but is
equivalent in the way that it means "do nothing project-wide, either
for or against".

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Nicolas Dandrimont]

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 17:53, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Better done with the morning coffee than late at night :-)
> 
> I suggest the following options and ordering to appear on the ballot:
> 
> [A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
> (proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal)
> 
> [B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies
> (proposed by Sruthi Chandran, currently proposal B)
> 
> [C] Discurage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading 
> position
> (proposed by Santiago Ruano Rincón, currently proposal C)
> 
> [D] Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
> (proposed by Jonathan Wiltshire, currently proposal D)
> 
> [E] Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
> (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal E)
> 
> [F] Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io
> (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal A)
> 
> My reasoning for this suggested ordering is to present the options
> ordered, from most strongly against to most strongly in support of
> Stallman. They could also be presented in the inverse order, if it
> seems that proposed options [E] and [F] are too underrepresented and
> left to the endto the end.

I would suggest moving proposal E to the top or to the bottom of the ballot, as 
one can argue that this "status quo" option doesn't really fit within the 
"condemn → support" axis you've proposed. I think I agree with how the other 
options are ordered.

Thanks,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Gunnar Wolf]

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:29:06AM +0200]:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:06:49AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Dear Debian Project Secretary,
> > 
> > Given the DPL authorized a shortened discussion period, and that, while
> > said discussion period allowed for a wide range of voting choices to
> > be accepted in the ballots, the tone of the discussion is highly
> > confrontational and I judge we will not gain any further insights or
> > wordings merely by giving it more time.
> > 
> > So, by following the Debian constitution (A.2), as a sponsor for one
> > of the amendments, I call for a vote, and ask you to draft the
> > corresponding ballot.
> 
> Please suggest names and maybe an order of the options.

Better done with the morning coffee than late at night :-)

I suggest the following options and ordering to appear on the ballot:

[A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
(proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal)

[B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies
(proposed by Sruthi Chandran, currently proposal B)

[C] Discurage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading position
(proposed by Santiago Ruano Rincón, currently proposal C)

[D] Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
(proposed by Jonathan Wiltshire, currently proposal D)

[E] Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
(proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal E)

[F] Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io
(proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal A)

My reasoning for this suggested ordering is to present the options
ordered, from most strongly against to most strongly in support of
Stallman. They could also be presented in the inverse order, if it
seems that proposed options [E] and [F] are too underrepresented and
left to the endto the end.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 01:06:49AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 08:56:33AM +0200]:
> > There is also this in 4.2:
> > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
> >to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
> >vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
> > 
> > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
> > The discussion period is over when a vote is called.
> 
> Dear Debian Project Secretary,
> 
> Given the DPL authorized a shortened discussion period, and that, while
> said discussion period allowed for a wide range of voting choices to
> be accepted in the ballots, the tone of the discussion is highly
> confrontational and I judge we will not gain any further insights or
> wordings merely by giving it more time.
> 
> So, by following the Debian constitution (A.2), as a sponsor for one
> of the amendments, I call for a vote, and ask you to draft the
> corresponding ballot.

Please suggest names and maybe an order of the options.



Kurt

Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»

[Gunnar Wolf]

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 08:56:33AM +0200]:
> There is also this in 4.2:
> 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
>to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
>vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
> 
> The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
> The discussion period is over when a vote is called.

Dear Debian Project Secretary,

Given the DPL authorized a shortened discussion period, and that, while
said discussion period allowed for a wide range of voting choices to
be accepted in the ballots, the tone of the discussion is highly
confrontational and I judge we will not gain any further insights or
wordings merely by giving it more time.

So, by following the Debian constitution (A.2), as a sponsor for one
of the amendments, I call for a vote, and ask you to draft the
corresponding ballot.

Thank you very much for your work!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature