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

Re: GR status

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:58:17 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> said: 

> On 2004-02-24 18:31:41 +0000 Debian Project secretary
>> srivasta@debian.org> 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
 non-free sections.

	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   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: