[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract

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)


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: