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

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:05:46PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> That is what this ballot is. Does anyone think otherwise?

Actually it's a vote in accordance with A.3.1.  I may not have been
completely clear on that in my earlier mail.

> > properly seconded (I have seen no reference to a message that enumerates
> > his required seconds, though I am confident anecdotally that he has them),
> Darren's previous announcement on this issue listed the URLs.

Yes; the CFV for Anthony's amendment listed no sponsors.

> The constituition does not clearly state that the social contract
> may be modified at all. Thus you have two options: accept Darren's
> interpretation and require a 3:1 majority, or accept that you cannot
> change the social contract at all. Neither answer allows the simple
> majority that you want.

Firstly, you have no idea what I want.

Secondly, there are more than two options. (For instance, we can suspend or
throw out this issue, vote on disambiguating language to the Consitution,
and resurrect the issue after that is resolved.)  False alternatives are
fallacious reasoning.

G. Branden Robinson             |    It was a typical net.exercise -- a
Debian GNU/Linux                |    screaming mob pounding on a greasy spot
branden@debian.org              |    on the pavement, where used to lie the
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |    carcass of a dead horse.

Attachment: pgp9w6JZIrvaG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: