Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 05:58:07PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 15:56, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Andrew Suffield (email@example.com) [040619 15:25]:
> > > Summary: you probably want 3 or 6.
> > Summary: I don't want a biased summary of someone who broke the
> > process of the release of sarge.
> > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1]
> > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC [needs 1:1]
> > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
> > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the
> > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot.
> How do you interpret the social contract, then? Remember it doesn't use
> terms like "software" anymore.
Then why does proposal F refer to software?
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>