On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution > > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should > > include SC/Constitution amendments to make them explicitly state that > > position > > All of those proposals are "position statements on issues of the day", > they don't purport to modify the social contract or the DFSG or the > constitution; they just give the project's understanding of where things > are at. As such they only require a simple majority to pass. OK, they are just position statements and that's all nice and fluffy but that doesn't leave us in a position where we actually can agree on what the foundation documents mean because they are still ambiguous. How does this really help. I would like to see a vote with options along these lines all of which amend the foundation documents to be explicit about matters. Yes they would then all require 3:1 but like I said, the project really ought to be able to get one of them 3:1 > As far as voting for a position statement along the lines of "the social > contract doesn't matter, we'll upload Microsoft Word into main, yay!", > I believe that would also require a simple majority (1:1) to pass, and > would hope that a vast majority of the project would join me in voting > against it. If a majority of developers are making position statements > out of line with the social contract, I don't think there's much point > being part of some honourable minority trying to keep them in check. If this vote is 1:1 then there's no point in the 3:1 requirement since you can just ignore them with a 1:1 vote. When we (using the term loosely, since it doesn't include me) voted in the constitution, surely the 3:1 requirement was put there for a reason. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature