On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 21:32 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:50:05PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 18:31 +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:33, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > >"3. Override any decision by the Project Leader of a Delegate." > > > > > > > > What decision has been made? Has there actually been a rejection of the > > > > inclusion? > > > > > > Refusal to act is a decision and a rejection. > > > > > Refusal to act is a decision to not act. > > > > Simply not acting is not a refusal to act, it's just a lack of activity. > > > > In fact, the constitution specifically allows for people to simply not > > act and there is no way, other than an amendment to the Social Contract, > > to force a group into activity. > > I think you need to modify the constitution itself to do that. > Erk, that's what I meant. Sorry, masturbatory GRs still make me think of the recent SC amendment. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part