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

Re: SC changes

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

Reply to: