Re: DFSG v2 Draft #5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
> IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
> be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
> revision proposals "out there", even though this one is the only one
> being currently hashed out on the list.
>
> My voting structure proposal is (using preference voting):
>
> [ ] Retain current DFSG
> [ ] Revised DFSG proposal by A and B
> [ ] Revised DFSG proposal by C
> ...
> [ ] None of the above alternatives is acceptable
>
I envision it as being:
[ ] ORIGINAL Draft
[ ] Draft w/o patch clause
[ ] Draft w/o advertising clause
[ ] Draft w/o both clauses
[ ] Current DFSG
[ ] FURTHER Discussion (required by constitution)
- --
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <>< *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
* Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 *
* <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
* KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- *
* Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ *
* <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNqw4PLbps1lIfUYBAQEFwAP/XVtTUurR3n5BvuxShF5+xrIdRByDxI4w
aRVNOjZ0CgoXrCAkeRpuA6S0B3Y2qtzd7t7nX77jUU6wCQUE6yJ9mrNgXLKevXQv
gfBVyW72RNA6jyxs3T0HOySAfGPJCVkp+f95ex47ocXLhW3kMjhdfpAAdSzt4zcT
Qs80QzGMekk=
=iLG9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: