Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:54:46AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote.
Yeah, after thinking about that one for a bit, I realized I was wrong.
> > 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.
> I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If
> clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other
proposal? If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly
this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots?
Note that my most recent proposal works fine with either of Andrew's
proposals. So from my point of view it would make a lot of sense for
all three to appear on the same ballot. [And, since Andrew hasn't been
willing to state what problems he's trying to solve, it may very well
be that this is fine from Andrew's point of view as well.]
--
Raul
Reply to: