MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to >> indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free >> section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment >> to non-free and continue to provide it. > > Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original proposal > does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do you consider > wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment wishes to delete > things, *it should say so*, as previous amendments have.
Well, the secretary can use his mind to not do something that is not meaningful. > >>> As it does to me. That is why I think it useless, too. >> I fail to see how you could arrive at that illogical >> conclusion, but hey. > > It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to the > ballot. Not sure it delays the vote, and I, as several others, want to clearly state that we want to continue our support of the non-free archive, GR are made for this. -- Rémi Vanicat
