On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > I think you may be right that R101 does interfere with R1742's claim > that contracts include the intention that they be governed by the > rules. This leads to two interesting conclusions: 1) R101(iv) should > be a privilege, not a right (i.e., you should be able to sign it away > under certain circumstances). 2) It may not currently be possible to > create an R1742 contract. If a contract must include the intention > that the rules will govern it, and the rules *can't* govern it, then > how can this requirement be fulfilled?
The original "Rules=Contracts" clause included the notion that reasonably formal democratic procedures (i.e. "the proposal process") were considered prima facie to be protective of rights. That is, you could "sign them away" and replace explicit consent with a formal method, as long as you agreed to the initial formal method. So if you agreed to be a part of the proposal process, you agreed to abide by contract changes even if you vote against them. The rules are silent now on whether agreeing to such formal processes are indeed protective of rights. But to look at it a different way, it's actually two rights that conflict. It's your right to agree to a contract that removes some other right...which right has precedence? I'd say it's perfectly fine to favor contract law; that is, your right to be bound by an NDA of your own choosing is stronger then your right to duck the behind the "fora participation" right when you break your NDA. I'd support that ranking because it's keeping with the "spirit" of the current contract rules. -Goethe
