On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Personally, I worry about any kind of wholesale change in the language
> of the constitution. Yeah, if you change major chunks of the document
> then current ambiguities would go away. But how do we know whether we're
> introducing new ones? Or whether we're introducing other problems?
Raul, how do you know your interpretations aren't introducing more
problems? It's not like your interpretation (of supermajorities in
particular, but also of cyclic tie-breaking) has ever actually been used
before, either within Debian or without. It's not like it's the end result
of months of discussion by experts, and years of electoral research. It's
not even like it's the widely held consensus of a bunch of non-experts.
Instead, it's one non-expert's interpretation of a not particularly
plainly written document written mainly by another non-expert, that
hasn't particularly stood the test of time all that well.
Can you see why I don't think all this random "but that's not what the
constitution *says*" junk isn't the right way to approach this, or even
a particularly helpful interlude?
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.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpCooQslfk0G.pgp
Description: PGP signature