Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: >> There are also indications that a significant group of people within the >> project feels that the current Social Contract does not meet the best >> interests of the project in that the current wording is too restrictive and >> that a limited and conditional inclusion/support of some types of >> "software" should be possible. Example: support for loading sourceless >> firmware during installation. > > This paragraph seems to be speculation about the intent of other people; I > think it would be better to either leave it out, or make it a statement > about the voters' *own* views.
Leaving it out is okay, but please don't phrase it in a way that implies that anybody who votes for this option declares to be discontent about the SC. I think I'd be willing to rank this proposal quite high on any ballot involving any of the proposals made so far. But I'd never rank a proposal higher than further discussion in which *I* declare that I want the SC to be reverted. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
