On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:21:29AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > I wonder what kind of majority is required to modify the Social Contract > or the DFSG. I'ld expect them to have at least the same protection as > the Constitution itself.
In fact, the social contract has never been ratified under the constitution. Informally, one of the things that Ian expected us to do with the constitution is ratify the social contract and existing policy. Unfortunately, we've never gotten around to that, and the exact status of the social contract with respect to the constitution is somewhat ambiguous. Prior discussions on this very issue [getting rid of non-free] have been so divisive that we wound up tabling the discussion in disgust. Personally, I think before we take up a vote about changing the social contract, we should take up a vote about what relation the constitution has to the social contract. And, since that vote would mix supermajority and non-supermajority issues, before we tackle that we should fix the voting system so it is unambiguous about these kinds of mixed votes. And, it's my fault that we don't have an adequate draft for fixing the voting system. I'll try to submit one today. FYI, -- Raul
