Re: SC changes
- To: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
- Cc: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: SC changes
- From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 01 Apr 2004 20:37:43 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87isgjxaeg.fsf@becket.becket.net>
- In-reply-to: <20040328043452.GM5159@xieana.donarmstrong.com>
- References: <873c7vq6hy.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20040327065717.GH5159@xieana.donarmstrong.com> <20040327091659.GB715@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> <20040327115742.GK5159@xieana.donarmstrong.com> <87ptaxd6qg.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20040328043452.GM5159@xieana.donarmstrong.com>
Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
> If you only like specific parts of a proposal, and there are enough
> people who share you viewpoint for it to matter (6 people to second
> your proposal) then you just need to propose an amendment
> incorporating the parts you like and removing the parts that you
> don't.
So, duh, that was the *point* of my suggestion. But I don't have the
arrogance to just declare "this is the best way" without hearing
discussion, which is what I was trying to invite.
Sadly, Debian seems to head for the meta-discussion by a sort of
nervous tick.
So, can we discuss the different sections separately, and then perhaps
replace the current proposals (much of which I do like) with
section-by-section consideration, so that we can get each section as
good as possible?
Reply to: