* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040224 17:10]: > You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or > not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal > itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it > seems good to have a final ballot which would look like it : > > [ ] let's remove section 5 from the SC and non-free from the archive. > (Assufield's proposal, needs 3:1 supermajority) > [ ] let's keep non-free and the status quo, not changing the SC. > (aj's proposal, need a simple majority) > [ ] Further discussion. > (default option) > > Seems nice to me. > [...] > If indeed there is such a problem, i doubt the seconds will > have problems in signing the corrected version. > [...] > No, it will mean that the majority of the project expressed that the > status quo is ok, and wants to keep non-free, and please don't come > again with this in the near future. > [...] > Please, let's vote on this, and don't come now with this kind of things. > It is clear that aj intented this proposal to figure on the same ballot > (and i think he intent for the esthetic changes to appear on a separate > ballot).
All very true. Please let's vote ASAP, and settle the matter of removing non-free or not. Everything about pros and cons have been said more than once. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
