Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:58:33PM -0500, I 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 second thought, no it wouldn't.
> He was probably asking for an alternative.
> But that would better be expressed as two proposals: one with both
> the major and minor changes, the other with only the minor changes.
> He needn't even express the minor changes in both proposals if the
> one with the major changes was expressed as a delta against the other
I believe that it is best to first fix the cosmetic changes, and then
vote on the substantive issue. I was among those that argued over that
last year when Branden proposed it, altough Michael choose to only cite
This is to avoid the chance of people missing important changes in lot
of minor details that seem rather nice, as may well have happened with