Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
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, 22.214.171.124 "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority
> > for its supersession."
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 04:59:09AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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 We could make the logo require a 3:1 majority to be superseded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...
I'm not sure that we could make the logo a foundation document without
changing the constitution. The logo doesn't represent any rules that
I'm aware of. I certainly don't see the relevance of this paragraph.
> 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...
"critical to the Project's mission and purposes" describes the
constitution, the DFSG and the social contract -- at least right now.
I'm not sure in what way you think that "critical to the Project's
mission and purposes" is not descriptive.
> 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".
I'm really not getting your point. You already quoted 2.1.1, which
pretty much says "we shouldn't do that".