On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change > are twofold: > > 1) remove some ambiguities on the wording, > 2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue. > > However, the SC is a document which has quite an historical and > sentimental value for most of us, well, at least for me. > > So I feel reluctant to change it to remove ambiguities, while I agree > on the interpretations that are reinforced. > > For that reason, I would suggest than instead of altering the text of > the Social Contract, we add an Addendum spelling out the clarifications > we agreed upon. > > I don't expect to have the resources to introduce a new proposal for this > GR, but I see most of the disagreements on this list being on the > precise wording of the changes than on the actual interpretation of the > SC, so it could be easier to reach an agreement on the Addendum text.
I don't think that several pages of mental diffs are conductive to understanding, so pure conservatism doesn't sound like a good justification for doing it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
