Hi, >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Guy> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't see how this conflicts with the proposed >> constitution. Please give me more info on that.
Guy> The constitution places no limitations on the developer's Guy> authority with regard to their own work. Your version says that Guy> the maintainers must follow policy. Is that such a bad thing, really? I would rather that the policy documents be corrected, and held as a set of rules htat have to be followed, woth an exception for the items that happen to be in flux (and that means actively debateed at large, not just in the developers mind). The technical committee can then be called upon to interpret this document, and maybe amend it, if needed. I prefer the codification of rules that have to be followed and putting them out in the open, rather than continuing to depend on the judgement of a few good people in perpetuity. Some have called my view fascist. Codification of laws and rules is not fascism; on the contrary, it has served the masses more often than now. (Tha Magna Carta, and various and sundry constitutions around the world). It all started with Hammurabi codifying the laws, and limiting the power of the technical committee (I mean, the kings). In the east, especially in china, the tendency was to institute a rigorous process of selection of people who would be the mandarins (judges), and trusting to their judgement for justice. In time, the process fell into decay, as it could always be influenced, a little at a time, by people in power, and with patience and influencing the promotions of like minded or corrupt officials, the system decayed into one fraught with nepotism and old boy networks. I do not think having laws that are written down and not subject to the change on the whim of the president (imagine a presidential amendment saying the president can not legally sexually harrass anyone?) or any other power that be is a good thing. I do not think this is fascist. And I do think this would be a welcome and open restriction on the powers of the technical committee (well,, in my opinion, certainly). manoj -- "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought." Lord Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night") Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]