Re: Proposal - non-free software removal
>>"John" == John Goerzen <email@example.com> writes:
John> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:17:10PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> No, we actually went to having a GR proposed, wich is still
>> alive, though currently on hold waiting for the voting GR.
John> My understanding was that the previous GR was considered
John> expired under section A(5) of the Constitution.
Technically, yes. But at that time, when we tabled
discussions, the understanding was when the election methods
committee comes back with a recommendation, the discussions would be
John> If I was in error, that's fine. In that case, I would
John> contemplate calling with the withdrawal for the 2000 draft so
John> that we may instead vote on the 2002 draft, which I believe is
John> the better one.
Well, reviving the old draft would be done by reproposing it,
John> I'd like to see if anyone cares much one way or other about the
John> 2000 or 2002 proposal. If this happens, I'd intend to wait to
John> issue the CFV on the 2002 draft until after the other issues
John> are decided. Am I properly dotting all my i's with this plan?
>> Thank you. As soon as your draft is in, I'll move to open the
>> 3 week discussion period.
John> Doesn't that discussion period automatically open once the
John> draft is posted?
Proposed and sponsored.
How much for your women? I want to buy your daughter... how much for
the little girl? Jake Blues, "The Blues Brothers"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C