On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile > > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their > > preferences appropriately? > > Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to > do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means > that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen.
It's not complicating things; having a separate poll is. So instead of ranking non-free and further discussion, you rank non-free, non-free+social contract, and further discussion. Not all that difficult. > > I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a > > hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. > > What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without > clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will turn out. > Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will > hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let > people vote accrodying to this decision. Not necessarily; what makes you think that people voting on a GR will do so in the same proportions as those that discuss on -vote or participate in the poll? > Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the > social contract later. That's another option which doesn't require a poll. > But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Yes, that is what I am trying to say, too. I've been waiting for this since 2000 :-) -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]