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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Sun Jan 04 15:55, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> ----- "Steve Langasek" wrote: 
> > Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either 
> > a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position 
> > statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only override 
> > decisions that have actually been taken. Either way, if 50%+1 of the 
> > project wants to order a project delegate to do something that contradicts 
> > the Social Contract, there's no constitutional basis for having the 
> > Secretary prevent them from doing so. *The Secretary is an officer of the 
> > constitution, not of the Social Contract*. 
> Is now an inappropriate time to start a GR to formally recognize the
> Social Contract as a component of the constitution? The notion that
> the Social Contract (our purpose and motivation) is less binding that
> the Constitution (how we get things done) seems nonsensical in the
> extreme. 

Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to
clarify all this)


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: