Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: Non-free archive removal)
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> About Craig's increasingly insulting and offensive protest about the
> constitutionality of this CFV, to wit:
the only person i have been insulting to is the moron who deserves it.
cretins should learn to shut their mouth and stop annoying real people
with their stupid chatter, especially when that particular moron has
a history of interfering in areas that are way beyond his capacity to
understand and causing significant damage through his bumbling. While
i have disagreed with several other developers at times on numerous
different issues i have generally managed to respect them and/or their
positions...but not Joseph, i have no respect whatsoever for him, only
contempt - he's the ONLY developer I wish would just fuck off. debian
deserves better than idiots like him.
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > The requisite discussion period having been entertained, ...
> > your CFV is unconstitutional because nothing in the consitution allows
> > the Social Contract or DFSG to be amended.
> It's been pointed out plenty of times that the body of Developers
> do have this power, according to the DC:
it has been asserted by some that this is the case. note: not proven, not
established, just asserted.
> But, apparently, it is still not clear. It seems that Craig is "hung
> up" on a issue of founding documents:
no, the constitution mentions ISSUING documents. it says nothing about
MODIFYING existing ones.
> I would vote against John's proposal if I were already a Developer, but
> there's no denying that he has the Debian Constitutional right to make
> the proposal that he has, and to call for a vote on it.
no, that is not true. the constitution does not allow for modifying it.
constitutions are a list of enumerated powers - if a power is not listed
then it does not exist.