Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> said:
> > Perhaps for our next GR, we can contemplate whether it's appropriate
> > that less than 20% of the developers is enough to change one of our
> > most important documents. In fact, it could have been changed with
> > as few as 35, being less than 4%. That is, a 3:1 majority of
> > quorum(45.274). That's a very uncomfortable feeling.
> That is bot, BTW, how quorum works. You would need at least
> 46 people to change the foundation documents, as long as they were of
> one mind.
No, you need 46 people and only three quarters of them need agree.
That is less than 4% of our developer community.
> I find it amusing that we have people who were horrified how
> hard it would be to change a foundation document when that GR
> was proposed, and now we have another set horrified at how easy
> it is change one.
There's every sign that if people had been aware of the impact of this
GR, a lot more people would have voted against it and the supermajority
requirement would have failed.
Of course you're right and everybody should have read the GR that you
did indeed send to d-d-a three times. However you must concede that some
people ignored the issue based on the subject of the CFV message alone,
and that some people believe the subject of that message was misleading.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>