On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not > supposed to be used as a filibuster. If his answer to "what's the > point?" is nothing more involved than "because I want it to be known > where the developership stands on the question I proposed", and he gets > the requisite seconds, isn't it better to call the vote rather than > discussing interminably?
IMO, if that was all that was desired (which doesn't seem to be the case), it'd be better to run a poll. If I were trying to get rid of non-free, I'd probably aim to discuss the potential benefits/costs, try to get the secretary to do a poll to see what the likely consequences of removing non-free would be (would people want to see contrib removed too? would anyone actually maintain a nonfree.org site? which rephrasings of the social contract make more sense?), then try to work out explicitly what all the consequences would be and draw up a GR based on that. > Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless > by design? Saying "We resolve to drop non-free" isn't a toothless proposal; though it is one that contradicts a previous resolution without revoking it. But afaik that's no longer on the table. 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
