Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> There are also indications that a significant group of people within the
>> project feels that the current Social Contract does not meet the best
>> interests of the project in that the current wording is too restrictive and
>> that a limited and conditional inclusion/support of some types of
>> "software" should be possible. Example: support for loading sourceless
>> firmware during installation.
> This paragraph seems to be speculation about the intent of other people; I
> think it would be better to either leave it out, or make it a statement
> about the voters' *own* views.
Leaving it out is okay, but please don't phrase it in a way that implies
that anybody who votes for this option declares to be discontent about
the SC. I think I'd be willing to rank this proposal quite high on any
ballot involving any of the proposals made so far. But I'd never rank a
proposal higher than further discussion in which *I* declare that I want
the SC to be reverted.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)