Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:21:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> We could end up with rather a lot of options though;
> Editorial changes;
> Editorial changes + Andrew's remove non-free proposal
> Andrew's remove non-free proposal only
> Editorial changes + Raul's clarify non-free proposal
> Raul's clarify non-free proposal only
> Further discussion ie no change
My proposal includes editorial changes, and I'm not going to bother
trying to eliminate them. So there's no there will be no "clarify
non-free proposal only" from me. If you, or someone else, wants to
introduce one, that's up to you and the people who second it for you.
We always have the default option.
That leaves three proposals from Andrew -- the one he has introduced:
remove non-free proposal only
The other one he's currently discussing:
There is a need for "editorial changes alone", and I'm glad
that Andrew is doing that. If no one else was doing that I'd
be tempted to introduce that proposal on behalf of people who
claim interest in it.
And one which he has not provided a draft for, but which most closely
matches Branden's original proposal:
Editorial changes + remove non-free proposal
A five option ballot isn't at all outrageous -- we've dealt with larger
ballots before. Even if it were ten options, we should be fine.