On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single > > situation in which that will actually resolve anything. > > Why not ? > > Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole > speculation on what the DDs really want and enable us to go forward > constructively than all this mess that is surrounding this question, and > second, we can then propose a 3:1 social contract GR, which will benefit > from an idea of what will happen later.
But we could just as well propose a 3:1 social contract GR now, without the intervenng lag of a poll, and let it stand or fall on its own merits; and if people prefer to have some other wording, amendments can be proposed under the procedures we already have. > Like, you know, if the majority of the DDs want to keep non-free, then > there is no sense in having the social contract GR remove the words > about the non-free issue, and we can have a clean GR which only does the > nice cosmetic changes Branden has proposed. We can have both, even without the poll; one GR and one hostile amendment that get voted on at once. I personally would not see an informal poll as necessarily indicitive of how the results would play out in a formal vote. I suspect others would share that sentiment. -- John
