I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread along the following lines:
I hereby propose that we eviscerate the current resolution and replace it with the following: Title: Reaffirmation of Our Fundamental Principles and Documents We the Developers reaffirm our fundamental principles. <insert cut and paste from fundamental principles document> We therefore conclude that the chef-in-charge should follow the fundamental document regarding whether to use garlic. Of course the chef-in-charge is in charge of the recipies. (... various clueful people intervene ...) What do you mean it's ambiguous and vague ? But the Fundamental Documents are completely unambiguous and support my view of the Status Quo that garlic tastes nice. (... clueful people have another go ...) But it is clear as the light of day that our Fundamental Documents say that garlic is nice ! There is no need to say any more in our resolution. Now of course I have an opinion about what the Social Contract says and I think people who disagree either have poor reading comprehension or an axe to grind, or both. No doubt people on both sides of this argument feel similarly. But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities (`what does the Social Contract mean') as opposed to the moral/practical issues (`should we release Sarge in this state, or delay') ! It is also no excuse for vague and useless resolutions ! This discussion would be greatly assisted if people made a real effort to: * Say clearly why they think Sarge should be released as is, or why it should be delayed - _without reference to the Social Contract_ other than to discuss its underlying principles in the vaguest of terms. Remember that if you want to convince people about whether Sarge _should_ be released you have to convince _both_ people who think the amended Social Contract forbids it, and those who think it does not. * If you are writing a resolution intended to result in sarge being released, make it say so very clearly - and in particular, make it clearly answer any criticisms of vagueness or ambiguity. One of the main reasons we're in this mess is because of a perception of ambiguity. A resolution which doesn't clear the problem up is useless. In particular, any resolution intended to result in sarge being released should clearly state that it intends to waive any provision of the Social Contract which would prevent the release of sarge. Whether or not it requires a 3:1 majority is a matter of interpretation of the constitution. The power to adjudicate disputes about interpreting the constitution is given to the Secretary in 7.1(3). (There is no provision for the Developers to overrule the Secretary, so you can't `interpret away' this problem by GR.) If people carry on treating the Social Contract like some kind of holy bible - ie always arguing from it, rather than talking about what it should say - I'll be in serious danger of turning this thread into an eternal roving gun/abortion/god/speech flamewar just to demonstrate how silly you all are. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]