Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two
> proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to
> put them both on the same ballot so that it's clear what's up (and
> Andrew thinks it's alright), then that's fine with me.
Well, I was suggesting that "non-free + editorial" and "editorial"
was a more useful set of proposals than "non-free" and "editorial"
as stand alone proposals.
The only downside to "non-free + editorial" is that it hasn't been
proposed and seconded yet. But, that might be alright, if there's a
significant group of people in favor of his non-free proposal who are
opposed to the editorial proposal -- in that case, it's just more options
on the ballot.