On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they > > weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not > > be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went ahead > > anyway they would either need to be ignorant of the immensely > > controversial nature of removing non-free or simply not care. > > What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract, > if we're not going to remove non-free entirely? To distinguish between modification of the social contract, and removal of non-free; the latter vote should immediately follow the former (once we know what the ballot will look like for the first, we can write the second). There's no apparent reason why we should combine these two into one, with the resulting combinatorial explosion of options on the ballot. If you have actually read the current draft resolution, you will note that it is not "Adjust the social contract to permit removal of non-free"; that is mearly one of its effects. Should it fail as a batch of changes, we can go back and break it up into smaller chunks, then try again. It's not difficult. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature