Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:02:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:43:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:22:27 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
You do not know what you are talking about.
If less than 46 people vote the proposal above further
discussion, it does not make quorum. We have per option quorum, you
>> 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.
There is a moral in this: general resilotions are serious
affairs, and always deserve scrutiny, no matter how trivial you think
> 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.
People can think a lot of things, and I have no control over
their opinion. I can only see things from my viewpoint, lacking
telepathy; and the topic was, and is, valid from where I stand.
It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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