On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 04:16:55AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > The intent is merely this: to determine what we're going to do, rather > than get caught up in deciding how we're going to do it.
Uh, you can't separate the issues like that -- the only thing under discussion are the "whats" -- what we do with non-free, what we do with contrib, what we do to our social contract. > We've tried doing it the other way around, and it hasn't been working. I'm pretty sure I still haven't seen anyone advocating killing off non-free attempt to address the issue of what to do with contrib in the years this issue's been on the table. The recent attempt attempted to specifically avoid deciding whether to remove non-free or not. Work out how to address the whole problem, work out a good overall solution, then present that as your GR. That's what we did for the revised supermajority rules, and we got our 3:1 requirement quite happily. Why not follow the procedure that's been demonstrated to work, even if it's a bit hard? > If it helps, think of this resolution as a statement of intent (along > with a commitment to follow through on that intent). The objections aren't to the way you're phrasing things, and can't be fixed by rephrasing them. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
pgpbLy44M9BxO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
