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

Re: Moving clarifications to an Addendum instead of editing the SC ?

On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> As far as I understand the motivation for the editorial change 
> are twofold:
> 1) remove some ambiguities on the wording,
> 2) make the text look nicer from a literary point of vue.
> However, the SC is a document which has quite an historical and
> sentimental value for most of us, well, at least for me.
> So I feel reluctant to change it to remove ambiguities, while I agree
> on the interpretations that are reinforced.
> For that reason, I would suggest than instead of altering the text of
> the Social Contract, we add an Addendum spelling out the clarifications
> we agreed upon.
> I don't expect to have the resources to introduce a new proposal for this
> GR, but I see most of the disagreements on this list being on the
> precise wording of the changes than on the actual interpretation of the
> SC, so it could be easier to reach an agreement on the Addendum text.

I don't think that several pages of mental diffs are conductive to
understanding, so pure conservatism doesn't sound like a good
justification for doing it.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: