Re: Draft for a non-fee poll (Was: Re: Let's vote already...)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
> >
> > And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
> > non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without
> > clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably
> > fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real
> > intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do.
>
> Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> preferences appropriately?
Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to
do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means
that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen.
> I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a
> hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things.
What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without
clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free.
Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will
hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let
people vote accrodying to this decision.
Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the
social contract later.
Something like : provided the social contract gets ammended, we would
like to do ... blah blah ... about non-free.
But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: