Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On 2004-02-24 15:47:31 +0000 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
You are trying to oppose bureaucracy to a timely resolution of this
vote.
I merely point out the problems with this silly proposal. You advocate
a null amendment that would restart the minimum discussion timer and
delay the vote!
If indeed there is such a problem, i doubt the seconds will
have problems in signing the corrected version.
If that is the case, do it instead of saying "this is not a bug".
2. The rationale was mostly hypothetical and made claims about
evidence,
without giving evidence or references.
Yeah, whatever, you have no problem in doing the same yourself, so
please ...
Shooting at the messenger?
3. By reaffirming the status quo, an amendment with this form would
not
achieve the stated final goal of "a better outcome than further
discussion"
as far as I could tell. It introduces what is effectively a second
"further
discussion" option, which seems improper.
No, it will mean that the majority of the project expressed that the
status quo is ok, and wants to keep non-free, and please don't come
again with this in the near future.
It does not seem to mean the last of these, and the first two are not
significantly different to Suffield's drop GR not passing.
This is quite different from non-free.
???
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: