On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 05:33:11AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Should we have another vote to see if the social contract deserves > supermajority protection? Is there some other way of doing things that > won't require a boring mass of legalese or continued pointless ineffectual > flaming and counter-flaming?
I don't think so.. It seems like the only real solution is to set this issue aside and fix the constitution first. This too would be precedent setting, but IMO it would be a better precedent than effectively modifying the constitution in practice but not on paper. I'd happily vote in favor of a constitutional amendment fixing the language so we can quite clearly issue AND revise non-technical documents without selective interpretation as well as mandating that the social contract and DFSG require a lot more than a simple majority to change. > (I think our constitution is broken: we're having too many votes on every > minor issue. Logo and logo swap; Social contract majority; how to amend; > whether to amend...) The constitution seems to mandate a vote to settle pretty much everything. Given that, the voting process is rather slow and painful. By the time we actually have a vote (much less finish voting), most people want the issue just dropped because they don't really care to hear about it anymore. (big example: logo votes) -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 <Flood> can I write a unix-like kernel in perl?
