Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2017-01-14 11:49, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
>
>> While I stand by my GR in principle, I agree with those who have
>> said that it is not worth spending time on something like this
>> unless it's going to pass without opposition. Since this GR /has/
>> turned out to be quite controversial, I hereby withdraw it.
> I support your interest in bringing the topic for discussion; I
> agree that the unfortunate inference you described can be
> reasonably read in the text of SC §3.
This pretty much sums it up for me. I would like to extend a specific
thanks to Gunnar for the verbose background story.
> So, thank you for starting this, and for finishing it gracefully.
>
> Also: welcome to the project!
Indeed!
- --
brother
http://sis.bthstudent.se
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=DHnZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: