Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>]

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> 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
> 	(b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> 	    should require a supermajority
> 	(c) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> 	    by simple majority is perfectly reasonable and legal under the
> 	    constitution

Also, we should clarify that (c) could further be subdivided into
people that feel that the social contract should require more than a
simple majority to modify in an ideal world but also think that it
currently does not, and those that think that it should not require
more than a simple majority to modify.

> Darren proposed to fix this by fiat, which is definitely the way to get things
> done elsewhere, but isn't exactly constitutional.

Exactly.  We seem to have a deficiency in the constitution in this
matter.


-- 
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>                       www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.    www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                     <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
     via remote from Amtrak - Chicago Union Station