On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote: > >>>>> OA == Osamu Aoki [2004-5-7] [...] > OA> * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second > OA> this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? > > I think that Craig's proposal should be on the ballot, therefore I > signed it. > > I more or less agree with some (actually not so many, by far not all) of > the rationales listed by Osamu. Please point out if you find factual mistakes. > However, I don't think I need to agree with all of these, or even any, > for that matter; in fact, I don't exactly understand what our > secretary would want seconders to state about the rationales part. The reason was explained by our secretary. He does not wish to be caught in the middle. (like now) > Coming to the Osamu's proposed reformulation, I like Craig's original > wording much more than that. In particular I don't like that «but > recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > serve our goals or the interests of our users» thing at all: I suggest > stripping it off completely. Hmm.... I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your interpretation of "deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal" makes sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. Osamu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature