On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 +0000 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent
way with
a single proposal.
The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons" issue.
Only so far as "remove non-free" is an instance of "something
requiring a SC change to perform".
Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the "remove
non-free"
issue.
What does "addressed coherently" mean, given this state of things?
Your editorial changes to clauses 1-4 and your substantial changes to
clause 5 seem to be totally independent to me. The editorial changes
to clauses 1-4 should be proposed as an amendment to the "Editorial
changes" GR, not this one. Combining the two distinct issues into one
makes the proposal less coherent. I think it is trying to ride
unrelated changes through together by stealth.
There's nothing preventing any of a variety of other "different
editorial
changes" proposals. In fact, Andrew has proposed one, and I believe
you're aware of it.
I'm glad you're aware of it. Why not second and amend that instead,
for most of your changes? Reduce this amendment only to include your
new clause five.
I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in
> the
social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.
Including claims that substantially change current positions does
not do
that.
You have yet to identify any actual change in what we do.
Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes:
1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG;
2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system;
3. the request for redistributors to check non-free licences;
4. the commitment to provide infrastructure;
5. transition plan for non-free packages.
While I think the introduction of the last two is laudable, the first
seems questionable and I dislike losing the other parts.
Ok, I'll generate these afresh. This will take a bit of time --
hopefully
I'll post them all by tomorrow, but "by tomorrow" is not a promise.
Thank you for these. They have made the amendment much clearer to me
and I hope others find them useful too. The first in particular
highlights the unrelated nature of clause 5 changes to the others.
Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do
>> at
source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.
> Oh, cute, sarcasm.
That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you
should look
up the meaning of the word.
It's sarcasm because you were not seriously suggesting that everyone
read
the previous proposal drafts for my change comments. That your
statement
is also factual when taken literally doesn't remove that aspect of
what
you wrote.
No, it still isn't sarcasm. I was stating that people are able to,
basically agreeing with your claim that I am able to. I made no
suggestion that people should do it. I just noted that I would rather
not. I am almost horrified that you misinterpreted it so badly. There
is no suggestion that people should do it. If anything, there is an
implied sentiment that we should dismiss your incoherent amendment and
spend our time more profitably.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
