_Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread
along the following lines:

  I hereby propose that we eviscerate the current resolution and
  replace it with the following:

    Title: Reaffirmation of Our Fundamental Principles and Documents

    We the Developers reaffirm our fundamental principles.
    <insert cut and paste from fundamental principles document>
    We therefore conclude that the chef-in-charge should follow the
    fundamental document regarding whether to use garlic.  Of course
    the chef-in-charge is in charge of the recipies.

  (... various clueful people intervene ...)

  What do you mean it's ambiguous and vague ?  But the Fundamental
  Documents are completely unambiguous and support my view of the
  Status Quo that garlic tastes nice.

  (... clueful people have another go ...)

  But it is clear as the light of day that our Fundamental Documents
  say that garlic is nice !  There is no need to say any more in our
  resolution.

Now of course I have an opinion about what the Social Contract says
and I think people who disagree either have poor reading comprehension
or an axe to grind, or both.  No doubt people on both sides of this
argument feel similarly.

But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities (`what does
the Social Contract mean') as opposed to the moral/practical issues
(`should we release Sarge in this state, or delay') !

It is also no excuse for vague and useless resolutions !


This discussion would be greatly assisted if people made a real effort
to:

* Say clearly why they think Sarge should be released as is, or why it
  should be delayed - _without reference to the Social Contract_ other
  than to discuss its underlying principles in the vaguest of terms.

  Remember that if you want to convince people about whether Sarge
  _should_ be released you have to convince _both_ people who think
  the amended Social Contract forbids it, and those who think it does
  not.

* If you are writing a resolution intended to result in sarge being
  released, make it say so very clearly - and in particular, make it
  clearly answer any criticisms of vagueness or ambiguity.  One of the
  main reasons we're in this mess is because of a perception of
  ambiguity.  A resolution which doesn't clear the problem up is
  useless.

  In particular, any resolution intended to result in sarge being
  released should clearly state that it intends to waive any provision
  of the Social Contract which would prevent the release of sarge.

  Whether or not it requires a 3:1 majority is a matter of
  interpretation of the constitution.  The power to adjudicate
  disputes about interpreting the constitution is given to the
  Secretary in 7.1(3).  (There is no provision for the Developers to
  overrule the Secretary, so you can't `interpret away' this problem
  by GR.)


If people carry on treating the Social Contract like some kind of holy
bible - ie always arguing from it, rather than talking about what it
should say - I'll be in serious danger of turning this thread into an
eternal roving gun/abortion/god/speech flamewar just to demonstrate
how silly you all are.


Ian.