Re: GR status
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 2004-02-26 06:36:57 +0000 Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com>
>> 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.
Well, the secretary can use his mind to not do something that is
>>> 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
Not sure it delays the vote, and I, as several others, want to clearly
state that we want to continue our support of the non-free archive, GR
are made for this.