On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:35:17PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >I would hope that everybody who has a vote already knows what we want > >the social contract to say, because they agreed to it when they joined > >the project. The question of whether or not to keep non-free is > >entirely orthogonal and does not affect this GR, by design. > > > Uh, some of us were actually around before the social contract... and > I'm pretty sure nobody ever asked me if *I* agreed to it.
Uh, what? I thought it was introduced with the agreement of all the current developers. > Further, "I > agreed to X therefore I give up the right to ask for changes in it" is a > specious argument. The whole point of this proposal is that it doesn't significantly change what the social contract means - it just restates it more clearly. Therefore, objecting to it on the grounds that "we don't know what we want it to say" is not something that makes sense to me. Given that I have already proposed a GR that *does* change what it means as well, it should be fairly clear that I don't object to changing it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
