Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> in this particular case, the GR was proposed with a misleading title
> (it was NOT a simple "editorial" change, it was a radical change to
> the meaning of the Social Contract which will ultimately result in
> the death by irrelevance of debian) and effectively got through by
I see. Hrm. It's curious that you never raised this objection during
> very few actually voted, roughly half the number that
> normally votes.
We very recently passed the amendments to the Constitution which give
our rules for amending the Social Contract. I don't recall you
complaining that the quorum required was too low, but maybe I missed
Nor was this half the number that usually votes. The last DPL
election and GR were extraordinary; this vote was about the usual
number. Go look at the history.
> in any case, it has already been established that the GR had serious
> problems - there is an existing proposal concerning it.
I believe that any serious problem here is one that the release
manager created. I'm happy to address it.