-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote: > IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will > be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG > revision proposals "out there", even though this one is the only one > being currently hashed out on the list. > > My voting structure proposal is (using preference voting): > > [ ] Retain current DFSG > [ ] Revised DFSG proposal by A and B > [ ] Revised DFSG proposal by C > ... > [ ] None of the above alternatives is acceptable > I envision it as being: [ ] ORIGINAL Draft [ ] Draft w/o patch clause [ ] Draft w/o advertising clause [ ] Draft w/o both clauses [ ] Current DFSG [ ] FURTHER Discussion (required by constitution) - -- ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* ========================================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqw4PLbps1lIfUYBAQEFwAP/XVtTUurR3n5BvuxShF5+xrIdRByDxI4w aRVNOjZ0CgoXrCAkeRpuA6S0B3Y2qtzd7t7nX77jUU6wCQUE6yJ9mrNgXLKevXQv gfBVyW72RNA6jyxs3T0HOySAfGPJCVkp+f95ex47ocXLhW3kMjhdfpAAdSzt4zcT Qs80QzGMekk= =iLG9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----