On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:43:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a > > > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate? > > Would you be happy if Branden added a clause along the lines of: > > Further, the acceptance of the GR is not intended as a mandate > > to actually remove the non-free or contrib sections of our > > FTP archive. > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either: > Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the archive, > and no longer supported by the Debian project. > or > Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be supported by > the Debian project. > on the other hand would be unobjectionable. If you confuse those two > points, whichever happens (non-free staying or being removed), one or > the other group is going to (justifiably IMO) feel cheated. Put both on > the ballot if you like. But clarity is a good thing. Of course, that leaves voters without any way to express the opinion "change the Social Contract to not mandate non-free, but punt on the question of its actual removal", which is also a valid viewpoint. If people really feel it's important to tie the non-free removal question to the SC amendment question, then, it seems to me there ought to be three ballot options. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature