Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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...)
Who do you think you are? How dare you try to put out the fire.
----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL++++ P+ L++++ !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
----BEGIN PGP INFO----
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E 63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-----END PGP INFO-----
Proposal: I believe that Debian, as it currently stands, is not yet ready for
the end of this flame. I therefore, propose that we do not stop attacking
each other, and continue on with the status quo.
Reply to: