On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:26:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > We know what the proposers intend. Will you follow their intent? > Does their language fail to match their intent in some way that you > will find yourself bound to disregard their intent? I'm required by the constitution not to act against the decisions made under the rules of the constitution (2.1.1). I don't believe there's anything subtle or ambiguous about that. I've delegate the decision on this matter to the technical committee. I don't believe there's anything particularly subtle or unclear about that either. After months of continually talking at cross purposes about the meaning of the social contract, and apparently continuing to do so after a GR intended to clarify those conflicts, I'm not going to pretend to have any idea what your "intent" is. Given Andrew's latest proposed GR and your comments about your expectations about the result of his editorial GR, I'm not particularly convinced you should be claiming to understand anyone's unexpressed intent either. I don't believe you should need to rely on anything more than the above, and I'm not being deliberately obstructive in this in any way. Well, except for people who want me to make this decision so that I'm the only target for the abuse of whichever faction ends up getting upset about it. And fuck that for the joke it is. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature