[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)

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.
> So his other proposal is still valid and there's no point in recombining
> the two.
> That's how I remember the discussions, please correct me if I'm wrong.

What I can't figure out is why anyone thinks this is a good idea.

AJ was saying that editorial changes belong on the same ballot as the
more substantial changes, and that putting them on separate ballots was
a bad idea.

For example:


Reply to: