On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Joey Hess wrote: > Chris Lawrence wrote: > > (IMHO this proposal is a amendment to the Social Contract; it should > > be clearly marked as such. I also note that our beloved Constitution > > Which proposal? Wichert's or Jason's? Jason's is indeed a mod of the social > contract. Wichert's is a mere technical change.
Sorry, if it is a mere technical change we wouldn't be voting on it, the Technical Comittee and the various maintainer groups would be responsible. The only reason we are voting is because the issue is impossible to derive unambigously from the social contract. The result of this decision will set a precident which will be in effect the same as a change to the social contract - it just isn't marked as such and the repurcussions are not exactly evident. I guess it is an odd quirk of the consitution, what happens if several people belive that a vote represents a change to an important document, or a change that contravenes a clause in something like the social contract. Is the submitter allowed to continue the voting process, perhaps even ratifying the policy? Jason
