Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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
> > proposal.
>
> 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
> aj.
>
> 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.
That said, since your proposal, contrary to Branden's one, doesn't try
to stealthily remove non-free, it may be not as important.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: