Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
> > document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
> > simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
> > say, and have a 1:1 vote?
> Because they really want to change the goal/values of the project?
Ehh.. so what? If I dislike certain projects goals or values and I'd
like to enforce another meaning and I can reach this either with a
hard-to-reach 3:1 majority or with a temporary easy-to-reach
single-majority each time I need it, why should I bother going the hard
> And please don't assume that a majority of developers are insane
> and want to pervert the project. If that is the case, we're all in
> a bad situation anyway. :-)
Nobody is talking about insanity. As the threads around those firmware
thing showed up different people have different opinions. The
goals/values might be *similar*, but obvious they are not identical.
> I'm convinced that a majority of developers would vote against any
> proposition that contradicts the social contract if there's no
> (good) rationale for the decision that justifies to temporary
> shift away from our goals.
Most likely, yes. But that is no hard fact, it is a anticipation.
Therefore consitutional laws exist, to control that in principle questions
this can be proofed.