Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

vote.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#81

Post by em-bee »

ohazi wrote: post #74
em-bee wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it only takes a few people to sponsor options, and plenty of people have sponsored options that they would not vote for because they believed that these options should be available.

That's exactly my point. If sponsoring options is done by the community, and is relatively easy, then fewer proposed options in one category does suggest that this category is unpopular with the community. If there are several variations of anti-RMS proposals, it suggests that enough people care about the specifics of how the rebuke is worded, etc., but that generally there is enthusiasm about an anti-RMS stance. If…

new options are only proposed when existing options do not represent all available opinions.

similar proposals can also be merged, and only options that make sense are being sponsored. and they are sponsored also by people who oppose that option because those people believe that the options should be balanced.

the existing options list all sensible outcomes. i can't think of any other pro- or anti-RMS option that would even make sense.

based on that i can't see how you want to extract any data on popularity

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#82

Post by remram »

zozbot234 wrote: post #24
tedunangst wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.

The "Further discussion" option is meant to allow for that. Note that the options calling for a statement in support of RMS were even less preferred than "Further discussion", which is quite weird given the context so GP may well have a point.

Why do you think it is quite weird? Historically, is the "further discussion" always at the bottom?

edit: I found those, so it's not that weird, but not very common: Init systems https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002 ; Delaying Lenny https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 ; Change to membership procedures https://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#83

Post by ghaff »

salawat wrote: post #69
Pfhreak wrote: post #6

If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…

What in the hell is with that tabulation of data? You don't even have raw vote counts. You have that weird floating relative representation going on, and no formula is given for the totals, or I'm not aware the procedures are that line that out. Example: 2 dimensional matrix Value at (x, y) coordinates should be read as option X received more votes than option Y. The diagonal is blank since it degenerates in this rep…

I think the language in results.txt is a little confusing. What I think it's saying is:

113 people preferred option 1 over option 2

137 [different] people preferred option 2 over option 1

and presumably the balance of the 420 didn't express a preference. Or at least that's how I read it.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#84

Post by jlgaddis »

Pfhreak wrote: post #46
gizmo686 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get to 2/3rds? I am not familiar with Debian's voting system, but I get just under 1/2 in favor publically supporting removal. I define "support" as preferring an option over "Further Discussion". According to [0], there were 420 unique voters. Using 420 as the denominator, and collumn 8 [1] as the numerator, we get the following approval voting results: 1) Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-le…

I may be misinterpreting or misapplying how they do a "passes majority" check, which seems to indicate 222 for and 166 against for option two. So it might be more correct to say ~3/5s?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#85

Post by em-bee »

zozbot234 wrote: post #24
tedunangst wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.

The "Further discussion" option is meant to allow for that. Note that the options calling for a statement in support of RMS were even less preferred than "Further discussion", which is quite weird given the context so GP may well have a point.

the more controversial or sensitive a topic, the more likely it is that people will believe that more discussion is needed before a decision is reached, so i don't find that at all surprising.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#86

Post by em-bee »

cbmuser wrote: post #23
tedunangst wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.

No, it simply shouldn’t have been public. The DPL elections aren’t public either.

correct, but the debian rules on this issue state that only the elections are not public. there are no provisions for private votes on resolutions.

this may change in the future if enough people find that (optionally) private votes on resolutions are a good idea.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#87

Post by em-bee »

fighterpilot wrote: post #68
Pfhreak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but do you have evidence it would have moved the needle in the vote. There are many, many well documented phenomena that influence every vote. While they may influence a small number of voters, I've yet to see any evidence that these results are not the genuinely held belief of most folks.

No, I don't have specific evidence, and I won't have it until we see an anonymous poll. I do believe I have a very plausible hypothesis, though, and I find it sufficiently plausible that I'm going to reserve judgement on the true beliefs of people until we see that anonymous poll.

it is conceivable that voters who are pro-rms voted 'no statement' or 'further discussion' instead

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#88

Post by raverbashing »

cbmuser wrote: post #13
Pfhreak wrote: post #6

If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…

> Debian will issue no comment, 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal. It's clear which way the tide is moving, even if Debian says nothing. FWIW, some people didn’t want to vote because the results would be publicly with names. So the result of a secret vote might have been different.

I'm surprised Debian didn't invent a way to do secure secret voting by email already (and by some of the technical comments on the results page I kind of though it was secret)

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#89

Post by hglp »

krastanov wrote: post #60
toomim wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound very intolerant of said "intolerance".

I am not certain whether you are making a very erudite joke or trolling, but either way, the "Paradox of Intolerance" might an interesting read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Being "intolerant to intolerance" is a fairly well accepted idea in societies that value personal freedoms.

Popper would have been disgusted by the treatment of RMS and cancel culture in general.

He'd also have been disgusted by being used in a propagandistic manner.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#90

Post by blp100 »

krastanov wrote: post #60
toomim wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound very intolerant of said "intolerance".

I am not certain whether you are making a very erudite joke or trolling, but either way, the "Paradox of Intolerance" might an interesting read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Being "intolerant to intolerance" is a fairly well accepted idea in societies that value personal freedoms.

Popper is abused by the woke. No one who actually read philosophy believes that Popper is in any way an apologist for the woke movement.
Post reply on HN