Re: Ratifying the constitution
Hi,
>>"Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <karlheg@inetarena.com> writes:
Karl> I like the `test' idea also. Perhaps there ought to be a clause
Karl> concerning that trial period, telling of what type of modifications
Karl> to our "program" will be allowed during that time, before the normal
Karl> ammendment procedure must be followed?
I don't. I think it is about time that we did something about
the constitution. We have had two separate discussion periods, and
when there is no concrete discussion on _this_ list, that means that
there is little anyone had to find to object to in the
proposal. (which is why we are having that "what if there is a bug in
the process" discussion).
If there is a flaw, and enough people agree it is a flaw (2/3
of the quorum), then there is no problem fixing it. Let us get on
weith it already. I am tired of incessant delays when we try to
implement anything.
And this is worse. We can't find a concrete flaw, and we want
to delay "just in case ...".
Karl> Uhhh... see any dictators or figureheads anywhere? :-)
No, please, not again. Our last figurehead dictator went down
in flames about this time last year. I have not healed yet.
manoj
pass the constitution. We have better things to do, and some need
constitutional processes.
--
"Die? I should say not, dear fellow. No Barrymore would allow such
a conventional thing to happen to him." John Barrymore's dying words
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: