On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:37:42AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:47:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:00:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > > The whole point of this proposal was to vote on the non-ideology stuff > > > > (i.e. what Andrew just presented, note the 'part 1: editorial' in the > > > > subject) apart from the big flamage question (the non-free stuff). Aj > > > > argued heavily for this splitup when Branden first presented his > > > > updates, and Andrew took up the ball when Branden was busy. > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:58:33PM -0500, I wrote: > > > Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made sense, > > > back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then. > > > > On second thought, no it wouldn't. > > > > He was probably asking for an alternative. > > > > But that would better be expressed as two proposals: one with both > > the major and minor changes, the other with only the minor changes. > > He needn't even express the minor changes in both proposals if the > > one with the major changes was expressed as a delta against the other > > proposal. > > I believe that it is best to first fix the cosmetic changes, and then > vote on the substantive issue. I was among those that argued over that > last year when Branden proposed it, altough Michael choose to only cite > aj. > > This is to avoid the chance of people missing important changes in lot > of minor details that seem rather nice, as may well have happened with > Branden's proposal.
That said, since your proposal, contrary to Branden's one, doesn't try to stealthily remove non-free, it may be not as important. Friendly, Sven Luther
