Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:52:16 -0500, Branden Robinson <email@example.com> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:29:17PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion, good
>> enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is worth
> It is your contention, then, that our Standard Resolution Procedure
> as exercised by the Developers to "issue, supersede and withdraw
> nontechnical policy documents and statements" is nothing more than
> an indulgence of whimsy?
*Sigh*. Yes, the standard resolution protocol can be used
whimsically. Can you point out here in the constitution is such
whimsy banned? Are you implying that something other than the
constitution puts a limit on how the standard resolution protocol is
used? Or is it your thesis that since the contitutional method was
used, the proposal so passed must istself be one of utmost gravity,
and by definition, correct and unassailable?
Where are you going with this?
> Even when such whimsies require a supermajority to enact?
What does the supoermajority have to with a lack of
capriciousness? I suppose you could be making the argument that if a
large number of people do something, it must then be studied and
logical. I am at a loss as to how to respond to such an absurdity.
> What value are the high barriers to amendment of the Social Contract
> if "whimsical" alterations can easily clear them?
I suppose we could try and raise the barriers even higher ;-)
> Conversely, what have we to fear from "whimsical" alterations if
> it's all but impossible to pass them?
I am not so sure that it is impossible to pass these GR's.
Hatred, n.: A sentiment appropriate to the occasion of another's
superiority. Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C