Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
> problem suggested.
>
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> should require a supermajority
> (c) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> by simple majority is perfectly reasonable and legal under the
> constitution
Also, we should clarify that (c) could further be subdivided into
people that feel that the social contract should require more than a
simple majority to modify in an ideal world but also think that it
currently does not, and those that think that it should not require
more than a simple majority to modify.
> Darren proposed to fix this by fiat, which is definitely the way to get things
> done elsewhere, but isn't exactly constitutional.
Exactly. We seem to have a deficiency in the constitution in this
matter.
--
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
via remote from Amtrak - Chicago Union Station
