On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
...a lot of stuff.
As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
problem suggested.
The problem is:
(a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
legally (according to the constitution) be modified
(b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
should require a supermajority
(c) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
by simple majority is perfectly reasonable and legal under the
constitution
Well, the other problem is none of (a) (b) or (c) think anyone in either of
the other groups is really making much sense.
Darren proposed to fix this by fiat, which is definitely the way to get things
done elsewhere, but isn't exactly constitutional.
There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
of view. So much for consensus building.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpPsHzCDP9we.pgp
Description: PGP signature