On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:54:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:29:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > You're completely incorrect. The resolution, if passed, may not be > > enforceable, but there is no procedural bar within the Constitution to > > passing a general resolution that is contrary in intent to anything at > > all. > > There's no *procedural* bar against us passing a wide variety of nonsense. If a resolution passes our Standard Resolution Procedure, calling it "nonsense" may be reflective more of your personal biases than its actual content. > Hopefully, we'll be smart enough to deal with the most egregarious > nonsense during the discussion phase or even better before it gets enough > seconds to come to vote [rather than having to vote on nonsense]. You can be as dismissive and belittling as you like when arguing against proposals, but such stances are no substitute for cogent arguments, and I think most people reading this list are quite aware of that. Furthermore, I think such a tone degrades the cooperative, convivial atmosphere that our Project Secretary said we should cultivate back in November[1]. > > If passed, and if the Social Contract has not been amended in a > > compatible fashion in the meantime, all this means is that "enforcement" > > of the general resolution would have to be suspended until the tension > > is removed -- whether by having another GR to retract Mr. Suffield's, or > > by amending the Social Contract. > > That's not *all* that this would mean, but the things you say "it means" > would certainly be the case. > > But, for example, it might also mean we weren't capable of putting > together a ballot which would address the issues we were voting on. As you note with your "might", not necessarily. You're free to impose this spin on it in your own mind, but that doesn't mean it's an objective fact. I don't think it's useful to confuse subjective editorializing on what it "means" to pass such a GR with how such a GR would procedurally be handled if passed, given our governance structure. Nevertheless, I will admit that promotion of exactly that sort of confusion appears to be a popular pastime on this list. [1] Message-ID: <87ekwekwig.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> -- G. Branden Robinson | Build a fire for a man, and he'll Debian GNU/Linux | be warm for a day. Set a man on branden@debian.org | fire, and he'll be warm for the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature