On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html > > I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he seems > to intend a separate ballot for grammatical changes (though it's possible > that that proposal will be included on this ballot -- see below for that > potential outcome). Quite obviously, it is not an attempt to resolve all further unrelated issues. By this definition there are no GRs that do not require further ballots. > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being > guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and > the constitution. I very strongly object to that. http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines.html explains what "guidelines" means here. It is the correct name. > Andrew's grammatical fixes proposal [has not yet been introduced]: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html > > It's not clear whether this proposal will be on this ballot or on some > other ballot. If it winds up on the same ballot, in some respects, > this proposal is very similar to mine. In fact, I adopted my proposed > changes to sections 2, 3 and 4 from a draft of this proposal. > Likewise, > Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues I've raised. I don't believe that is accurate. > However, this proposal is also more ambiguous than mine in a number of > places (in sections 1 and 5), and its still largely based on the state of > software back in the mid-90s when the social contract was first drafted. And I believe the opposite is true here. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature