> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would > > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing. On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal, > while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the > non-free issue? There's several problems: I can't get Andrew to talk to me about what he wants to accomplish. A ballot which changes the social contract which is restricted from changing the words the social contract uses is very limited in scope. [In particular, it seems to prohibit fixing the kinds of problems I see that need to be fixed.] Writing a proposal to fix up the problems remaining after the upcoming ballot changes the social contract doesn't really make sense right now -- you can't do it right until after the ballot has been frozen. [And it's even better if you wait until after the winning ballot option has been choosen.] Basically, meaning and wording are not orthogonal. -- Raul
