On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 06:52:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Any textual basis for that claim? > Constitution, 220.127.116.11 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority > for its supersession." Yes, and? We could make the logo require a 3:1 majority to be superseded too, but that wouldn't mean we'd have to change our behaviour in any way, except that we couldn't change the logo as easily... There's "goals of the project" (which could be met at some point in the future rather than right now), there's "nontechnical policies" (which can presumably have exceptions like all the other policies we've got), there's "position statements about issues of the day" (which don't seem to require any particular force on the project), but no indication which of these the social contract is. And there's "critical to the Project's mission and purposes", which doesn't really say much of anything at all. And that's about it... I can't see a constitutional basis for requiring us to uphold the social contract in any particular fashion, so if you want to dismiss options because they're not compatible with a reading of the social contract, you seem to need a better reason than just "we can't do that". Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <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