Yes, I did get that from the web page. Coomon sense seems to indicate that we can either cease active support of the non-free section (editing the SC as needed), or we can reaffirm our commitment to non-free and continue to provide it.
Modifying the amendment to delete part or all of the original proposal does not seem to be one of the Secretary's powers, or do you consider wording just a matter of procedure? If the amendment wishes to delete things, *it should say so*, as previous amendments have.
As it does to me. That is why I think it useless, too.I fail to see how you could arrive at that illogical conclusion, but hey.
It delays the vote in order to add a second "status quo" option to the ballot.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/