[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

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.

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: