On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:57:17PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Of course there are interactions between, but there are several > > > discrete proposals in each of the two version of changes, and I > > > might like some and not others. I would hate to have to vote > > > against the ones I like just because they are tied to ones I greatly > > > dislike. > > > > Why not propose amendments to the proposal that reflect your viewpoint > > then? > > Sure, I guess that would be no problem. But I don't get why everybody > pulls the 'make your own amendment' card right away. We're in the > discussion period, right? So I don't see a problem with asking Andrew > whether he'd be willing to do modify his proposal, if he sees the merit > of othere people's comments. Still hasn't happened, but in case it ever does, this should cut down on some noise: It's way too late to be arguing subtle points of grammar. This has been in progress for months, so there's been plenty of time for comments. So, you'd better have a decent argument behind any proposed change, not just "I like it better this way". As a completely random example, "maybe there are some things in it that I don't like, I don't know, I haven't read it" is not a decent argument. I don't believe this proposal contains anything that can reasonably be considered a controversial change; while some people may not *like* what the social contract currently says, this is pretty clearly what it *does* say, if you sit and think about it. That said, I can still invoke the typographical corrections rule if anybody should come up with a particularly convincing one. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature