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

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

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 02:52:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As far as voting for a position statement along the lines of "the social
> contract doesn't matter, we'll upload Microsoft Word into main, yay!",
> I believe that would also require a simple majority (1:1) to pass,

What you're saying is basicaly that a technicality can turn the 3:1
requirement in the Constitution into a simple majority requirement?

I'm not sure if this is so, but if it is, I think it's unfortunate that we
have such language in the Constitution.  IMO it should be either removed
for consistency or fixed so that it actually has the intended effect.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: