On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't > > say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're > > interpreted. > That's a strawman argument. > The ballot options are not being ignored.
I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents -- ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now in a sense, by continuing to leave bugs like #199810 unfixed. > I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial > proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been > voted on. Instead, he's acting as though they're false before they've been voted on -- personally, I don't think that's any better. A controversial false statement is just the inverse of a controversial true statement, afterall. Anyway, I think I've said my piece. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
