On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the > subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj > argued heavily for this splitup when Branden first presented his > updates, and Andrew took up the ball when Branden was busy. > > So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining > the two. > > That's how I remember the discussions, please correct me if I'm wrong.
What I can't figure out is why anyone thinks this is a good idea. AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was a bad idea. For example: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00178.html -- Raul
