[Please do not CC me on list mails.] On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 04:50:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Indeed, given a choice of my proposal, doing nothing, and your > proposal, that would be my ordering. In other words, I would prefer > the flaw of not allowing any changes to non technical documents to > allowing the changes without the protection of a supermajority to > Documets IO believe are more critical to the core of the project than > the constitution itself.
You typically order "doing nothing" over just about anything I've ever proposed or done, but I'm getting used to it. At any rate, it's heartening to know that no one in the project can propose that we withdraw or modify the "Why KDE Cannot be Included in Debian" statement (despite the fact that it is all-but-obsolete now) until the 3:1-Social-Contract bloc get thrown their bone.. > So yes, I would prefer that we vote on the superset first; (if > you think that is is a strict superset, and fully contains your > proposal, you should have no objections, right? ;-), since if the > superset passes the subset has passed too, and you have achieved your > goal). > > Frankly, I don't think my proposal is really a superset. Of course not. To admit that the issues are distinct is to admit that you're engaging in a practice common among, for instance, U.S. Congressional legislators: if you've got something that you or some Special Interest Group really wants passed but which you fear may not stand on its own merits, you tack it on as a rider to some other uncontroversial piece of legislation. The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new stuff without any hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or lack thereof), it is in no sense conceptually related to the following diff: - issue + issue, modify, and withdraw If you're so certain that the Foundational Documents portion of your resolution will pass, then you have no reason to object to ballots for it and my resolution to be issued simultaneously. If the Project Secretary and you agree, and you amend your proposal to omit the part already included in my proposal, perhaps we have a solution. -- G. Branden Robinson | We either learn from history or, Debian GNU/Linux | uh, well, something bad will happen. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bob Church http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ |
pgpJjCh1ZGPIP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
