Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: >> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1 >> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers >> > felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or >> > DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong. >> > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable >> > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social >> > contract or DFSG. >> It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. > > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be > trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to > move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the > "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you > don't trust the first group.
They can be trusted not to lie. They cannot be trusted never to make a mistake. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]