Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:13:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Note: as you've currently proposed this, it's not clear whether you
> > intended to offer it as an alternative to your other proposal or not.
> >
> > There are a few things in there that I like. If you are willing to
> > propose a version which combines this with your other proposal, I'll be
> > happy to update mine, yet again, with the parts I like.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff
> (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the
> subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj
> argued heavily for this splitup when Branden first presented his
> updates, and Andrew took up the ball when Branden was busy.
Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made sense,
back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then.
> So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining
> the two.
Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would
mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew's
deletion of part 5.
> That's how I remember the discussions, please correct me if I'm wrong.
You may very well be right about the history of this thing, but Andrew
needs to take at least a bit of responsibility for the consequences of
his actions.
However, since none of the proposed changes are particularly important,
it may very well be that the proposal will die for lack of seconds,
which will mean we can ignore it.
--
Raul
Reply to: