b) why have a "reaffirm the social contract" option when we have
> "further discussion"? We all agreed to honor the social contract
> anyway.
Perhaps the section above explain it?
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-
[Matthew Garrett]
> Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
> technical committee.
Not sure if I agree. Weighting different interests and prioritizing
betweeen hard choices is a political and not a techincal decition. As
such, it might be better to vetoing to the posit
[Sven Luther]
>> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people
>> be allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of
> people at that.
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocrati
[Colin Watson]
> I doubt that, because there are plenty of people who have no trouble
> communicating with ftpmaster, and they're generally the people who
> are less flamy about *everything*, not just any particular person.
Well, there are some of us less flamy people that also have problems
getti
[Jochen Voss]
> By the way, what was the meaning of "editorial" in
> "Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR"?
Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while
[Jochen Voss]
> By the way, what was the meaning of "editorial" in
> "Editorial changes to the Social Contract GR"?
Normally, in a political vote, "editorial change" is used to get
people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority
a better chance to get their vote passed while
6 matches
Mail list logo
