On Mon May 04 11:50, Ben Finney wrote: > No. I'm saying that there *are* such mechanisms, as pointed out earlier. > If a GR informs positive action but it's okay to interpret it as > “non-binding”, then we don't have a good basis for preventing actions > in contradiction to the GR. If, on the other hand, we say that GR *is* > binding, then actions that contradict it are harmful and can be stopped > on that basis. Indeed, and I think the constitution is pretty clear that they _are_ binding, as I posted upthread: Constitution 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them." Any GR is clearly "a decision properly made under them" and therefore "they must not actively work against [it]". That sounds pretty binding to me. > One of the prevalent themes in these discussions is that it isn't even > close to universal in the project what is “obviously stupid” and what > isn't. That's why we have decision-making systems. Absolutely Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature