On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:11:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this > > > > > proposal, > > > > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > > > > > > > > > that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > > > > > General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > > > > > (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > > > > > I second this proposal. > > > > > > > While I'm convinced that it wasn't meant as such (contrary to some > > > > remarks I've previously made on IRC), the title of the 003 GR was > > > > deceptive, and may have been at the cause of the current outcome. It's > > > > only fair to do it again, even if I agree with most of the changes in > > > > the GR. > > > > If you agree with most of the changes in the GR, wouldn't it be better > > > to propose something that fixes the parts you don't agree with, rather > > > than seconding an amendment doesn't represent your actual views? > > > No. One important part of voting over issues is "communication". > > Communicate to the people that are going to vote exactly _what_ they're > > voting on, and give them enough information to make up their own mind > > about the issue. > > If there aren't enough people who actually object to the new SC that > stand up and second Craig's amendment, I think that's a pretty clear > indication that there was nothing improper about the outcome of the > previous vote.
Yes, obviously. > There's been a lot of mailing list noise about the result, but it > looks like you're the first to actually second Craig's amendment. No, that's not true. I seconded it because I saw http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/debian-devel-200404/msg04537.html passing by. > <shrug> Which is certainly allowed, but I think you're mistaken if > you think people are going to want to repeal these SC modifications > and then start the process over Well, finding that out is what this is all about, isn't it? If nobody is interested enough in repealing these modifications, it'll be pretty clear to me that I'm wrong, so I'll shut up at that point. > if you have ideas about what's wrong with the new SC, I would > appreciate it if you voiced those now. I have no specific concerns with the actual text of the SC as it now stands; but I haven't looked into it in full detail either. I said "most" because I'd think it'd be silly to say "I fully agree" now, and retract that later when I would actually find a detail that I didn't agree with. The problem I have is with how things have been done, not with what has been done. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
