On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be. > > Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to uphold it. [Given the anguish with which we struggle on -project and -vote to figure out what the SC says, it's seems clear that large numbers of us feel that we should be upholding the SC.] > > As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the > > position statement in carrying out their duties (though they can > > of course be overridden by GR.) > > Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any majority > to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements? nifty. Sure. If we as a project are headed towards self-destruction, there's really no way for the constitution to stop us. We always have to fall back on the continued desire of developers to work together to create the most technically excellent, free operating system possible. Don Armstrong -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
