On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority > > might be formally required, and in my opinion the corollary is that > > supermajorities are a bad idea in general. > > > Do you agree with that corollary? If not, why not? > > Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in general. Which is a perfectly reasonable attitude to have and I wouldn't be surprised if a vote to remove them from our constitution passed (I might even second or vote for it), but at the moment we _do_ have supermajority requirements and we can't just ignore them because we don't like them. > This argument does IMHO not apply to making decisions about what Debian is > going to do. We shouldn't take decisions to set aside the DFSG lightly, but > the *process* for arriving at a decision should be lightweight. By that > standard, the past two months have been a failure on multiple levels. I think this all just goes to show that while _I_ don't think the constitution is ambiguous on this point and _you_ don't think it's ambiguous on this point, we both think it means different things, so it clearly _is_ ambiguous and this is a bad thing. I think we need to rewrite it to be clear and pick one position. I'm not even that bothered which one, but I will continue arguing for what I think our foundation documents mean (even if the vote goes against what I would prefer, if the majority says that). Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature