Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
> > 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
> > proposal.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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
At present there's still a slight chance of that happening, but a proposal
has already been introduced for the substantive issue, and no proposal
has been introduced for the cosmetic changes.
Personally, I don't see any reason not to do the cosmetic changes,
and my proposal incorporates them. If my proposal passes, it doesn't
matter if the cosmetic changes get voted on ahead of time or not.
Note that Anthony Towns has also argued against the cosmetic changes
appearing on a separate ballot.
> 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
> Branden's proposal.
I think that's best addressed by the proposal's rationale, and