* Tore Anderson > I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the > changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
* Manoj Srivastava > As an author of one of these proposals, and as an individual > who still holds that the changes made in GR 2004_003 were > editorial in nature, I have this to say: despite what you or I > believe as individuals about the nature of the language chages in the > previous GR, we are in the current GR process because the release > policy changed. > > The current proposal merely acknowledges the reality that > things changed: prior to the GR, we were on our way to releasing > sarge; post gr 2004 003, we are not. > > I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend > nothing changed -- whether or not we believe anything should have > changed. Hmm. Even though I think your proposal seems like a tool not entirely fit for the job at hand, I find your reasoning persuasive. It might just do the job anyway. For what it's worth I think the new foundation document your proposal introduces will be useful outside the scope of this particular issue. In all likelyhood, I will rank it above the other proposals that are currently slated for inclusion on the ballot. -- Tore Anderson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
