Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
> while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
> non-free issue?
There's several problems:
I can't get Andrew to talk to me about what he wants to accomplish.
A ballot which changes the social contract which is restricted from
changing the words the social contract uses is very limited in scope.
[In particular, it seems to prohibit fixing the kinds of problems I see
that need to be fixed.]
Writing a proposal to fix up the problems remaining after the upcoming
ballot changes the social contract doesn't really make sense right
now -- you can't do it right until after the ballot has been frozen.
[And it's even better if you wait until after the winning ballot option
has been choosen.]
Basically, meaning and wording are not orthogonal.
--
Raul
Reply to: