Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
> 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