Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
> problem suggested.
>
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
Based on one possible (and anal) reading of the wording of the
constitution, this is a reasonable interpretation.
> (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> should require a supermajority
I think it should, in fact. HOWEVER, there is no constitutional provision
AT THIS TIME for it. Fact is, gecko has NO AUTHORITY to single-handedly
alter the constitution in practice like this. I think we should vote on a
constitutional ammendment to require it, but gecko doesn't have the
authority to make up new parts of the constitution and consider them
Debian law on his own.
I am reminded of the events leading to the Cherokee Indian removal in the
history of the United States. The US president was given a decision from
the Supreme Court which he didn't like (and was not politically popular.)
Since it was essentially his duty (and nobody else's) to see that the
decision was enforced, he chose not to enforce it. Because his decision
was politically popular, he essentially got away with it. Such a thing
should have gotten him the boot real fast.
> (c) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> by simple majority is perfectly reasonable and legal under the
> constitution
I fall into this category. I don't think it's reasonable, but I do think
that's what the constitution says. Like it or not.
> Well, the other problem is none of (a) (b) or (c) think anyone in either of
> the other groups is really making much sense.
>
> Darren proposed to fix this by fiat, which is definitely the way to get things
> done elsewhere, but isn't exactly constitutional.
>
> There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
> of view. So much for consensus building.
He decided to do what he wanted rather than deciding on constitutionality.
=/ I don't like the method. It's setting a bad precedent.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
* Culus thinks we should go to trade shows and see how many people we
can kill by throwing debian cds at them
Reply to: