On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote: > > ,----[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ] > > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal > > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the > > | social contract should apply to /almost/ everything Debian does, now > > | and in the future; _AND_ for the few cases where it should not apply > > | now, there should be an explicit GR affirming that variation (by simple > > | majority) > > `---- > > I don't like the "workaround" approach to supermajority requirements. If > we don't want 3:1, why don't we ammend the Constitution instead? I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should include SC/Constitution amendments to make them explicitly state that position (and hence 3:1. I _really_ hope we can make 3:1 on this vote, the project is in a sad state if we can't) Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature