On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There hasn't been any other attempt to reconcile the above three points
> of view. So much for consensus building.
So, uh, would anyone like to actual suggest some course of action that
might be acceptable to everyone, rather than just insisting that their
particular preference is how it will be done, and everyone else is
uninformed, ignorant, apathetic, dictatorial, or whatever?
Should we have another vote to see if the social contract deserves
supermajority protection? Is there some other way of doing things that
won't require a boring mass of legalese or continued pointless ineffectual
flaming and counter-flaming?
(I think our constitution is broken: we're having too many votes on every
minor issue. Logo and logo swap; Social contract majority; how to amend;
whether to amend...)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpKcHEcUnqK_.pgp
Description: PGP signature