On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > I actually (mis)read you that you wanted Asuffield to combine the two > proposals into one, which I was opposed against. If it is possible to > put them both on the same ballot so that it's clear what's up (and > Andrew thinks it's alright), then that's fine with me.
Well, I was suggesting that "non-free + editorial" and "editorial" was a more useful set of proposals than "non-free" and "editorial" as stand alone proposals. The only downside to "non-free + editorial" is that it hasn't been proposed and seconded yet. But, that might be alright, if there's a significant group of people in favor of his non-free proposal who are opposed to the editorial proposal -- in that case, it's just more options on the ballot. -- Raul
