Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
* Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [040224 17:10]:
> You are trying to discuss not the proposed action, and if it is good or
> not, but trying to cast some doubt on the receivability of the proposal
> itself, which is not acceptable. There were far enough seconds, and it
> seems good to have a final ballot which would look like it :
>
> [ ] let's remove section 5 from the SC and non-free from the archive.
> (Assufield's proposal, needs 3:1 supermajority)
> [ ] let's keep non-free and the status quo, not changing the SC.
> (aj's proposal, need a simple majority)
> [ ] Further discussion.
> (default option)
>
> Seems nice to me.
> [...]
> If indeed there is such a problem, i doubt the seconds will
> have problems in signing the corrected version.
> [...]
> 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.
> [...]
> Please, let's vote on this, and don't come now with this kind of things.
> It is clear that aj intented this proposal to figure on the same ballot
> (and i think he intent for the esthetic changes to appear on a separate
> ballot).
All very true. Please let's vote ASAP, and settle the matter of
removing non-free or not. Everything about pros and cons have been
said more than once.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: