>>>>> OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7] [...] OA> * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second OA> this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot, therefore I signed it. I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all) of the rationales listed by Osamu. However, I don't think I need to agree with all of these, or even any, for that matter; in fact, I don't exactly understand what our secretary would want seconders to state about the rationales part. Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not serve our goals or the interests of our users» thing at all: I suggest stripping it off completely. However, as a merely pragmatic position of convenience, I will be happy with Osamu's reformulation if Craig and all of the other seconders state that they are fine with it. (Given our voting system, there will be actually no problem to have both Craig's and Osamu's proposals on the ballot, but I tend to think that too much options might be somewhat confusing, therefore I'm willing to be pragmatic here.) -- Salve, | GNU PG (GPG) Key ID: 9396865D Davide | <http://www.linux.it/~salve/>
Attachment:
pgp1hFXOQJFXV.pgp
Description: PGP signature