On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:11:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>:
> > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
> > > proposal,
> > > so that the entire proposal now reads:
> > >
> > > that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> > > General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> > > (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded.
>
> > I second this proposal.
>
> > While I'm convinced that it wasn't meant as such (contrary to some
> > remarks I've previously made on IRC), the title of the 003 GR was
> > deceptive, and may have been at the cause of the current outcome. It's
> > only fair to do it again, even if I agree with most of the changes in
> > the GR.
>
> If you agree with most of the changes in the GR, wouldn't it be better
> to propose something that fixes the parts you don't agree with, rather
> than seconding an amendment doesn't represent your actual views?
No. One important part of voting over issues is "communication".
Communicate to the people that are going to vote exactly _what_ they're
voting on, and give them enough information to make up their own mind
about the issue.
It is my opinion that this has not been done properly in this case; and
therefore, that it cannot be relied on that the current outcome of the
vote does indeed represent the opinion of the developer body at large.
Even if I agree with most of the changes, I cannot agree that the way
they have been made is the right way. Therefore, I feel they should be
pulled back and done again, this time properly.
Yes, I'm partly guilty here too; I should've looked at the proposal more
closely, and should have cried out. I didn't. Sue me.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature