Comment on Self-Host Weekly (4 September 2026) by @eshol

dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

Option A: Psychotic breakdown
Option B: Ethical impracticality
Option C: Political extremism
Option D: Two contradictory things at once
Option E: Something that doesn't prevent the other options but packaged with something nasty and unpalatable
Option F: Sensible but ultimately vague and action-less common place neutrality.
Option G: Nuclear option
Option H: Do nothing

• ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  How was it “designed for the winner”? Proposals to a resolution vote are submitted and seconded, with no restrictions on who, how many or what proposals are added, you just have to be a voting member of the ML. You can look at the list of proposal sponsors and the seconds to see how that’s done.

  www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002

  original

  • dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I skim them all. The options I wrote are soft parodies of what each said. There’s a ton of problems with this model of governance, but I’m no voting member, so my opinion has no impact.

    That said, it makes it so a single posture has to be voted on in its entirety, which is dumb (as some legislative bodies of the world have proven). As a result, nuance is erased alongside with any sense of ideological vision or compromise, and instead it promotes vagueness in every action and glacial institutions that break slowly break apart.

    The very person who wrote the proposal that won reacted to winning with:

    I regret the loss of contributors (which would have happened with either option winnign [sic]). It is just too early to take a final decision on the mater [sic]. Let’s revisit this in two years or so, and let this mess of a GR be a warning for our future selves.

    The proposal was designed to win time without having to take any real stance while taking the smallest loss of contributors in the process. And thus it was written as the most milketoast nothing burger. When an infinite set of possibilities exists that actually do address real concerns like climate impact, social impacts, copyright and legal problems related to generated code, etc. in relation to the principles and overall values of the project. Instead, they are deferring the practicalities to pull request’s bickering.

    But again, I’m not a voting member or contributor. So my opinion is null. I still think the way the process is designed and conducted is stupid and prone to cause the eventual failure of debian via governance collapse.

    original