Re: GR status
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:17 +0000, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 +0000 Debian Project secretary
>> email@example.com> wrote:
>> The Rationale for the amendment is also available. This amedment
>> only requires a simple majority to pass.
> Does this mean that it only needs a simple majority over the
> original, or that the amended GR would only need a simple majority
> over the default? Please note that Towns's amendment does not delete
> the Suffield's drop GR's change to the SC.
> It would be rather ugly if it is easier to pass Suffield+Towns and
> leave us with a worse situation on non-free than Suffield's drop
> failing to get supermajority.
The way I see it, these are mutually exclusive proposals. So,
either we get Andrews proposal, that throws out non-free from the
social contract, and the next release shall not have a corresponding
non free section; or we get AJ's version which shall not change the
social contract, and reaffirm the developers intent of retaining the
It did seem clear to me that the proposals were diametrically
opposed to each other.
"We expect them [Salvadoran officials] to work toward the elimination
of human rights." Dan Quayle, El Salvador, Feb 1989
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C