[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note that Anthony Towns has also argued against the cosmetic changes
> appearing on a separate ballot.

<kibo>

So, there are two cases: sometimes you want issues to be voted on in
separate ballots; sometimes you want them to be voted on in the same
ballot. You want the former when the issues are independent -- that is,
the decision on one issue doesn't affect anyone's opinion on the other
issue. You want the latter when that's not the case.

Issues like "remove non-free" and "remove the non-free requirement from
the social contract" aren't independent in that sense -- your opinion
on one is likely to influence your answer to the other pretty strongly;
so they should be voted on at the same time.

Issues like "remove non-free from the social contract" and "change
punctuation of second sentence in third paragraph" otoh probably should
be voted separately, since your opinion on one isn't likely to have much
to do with your opinion on the other.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004



Reply to: