On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation > > document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could > > simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to > > say, and have a 1:1 vote? > > Because they really want to change the goal/values of the project?
Ehh.. so what? If I dislike certain projects goals or values and I'd like to enforce another meaning and I can reach this either with a hard-to-reach 3:1 majority or with a temporary easy-to-reach single-majority each time I need it, why should I bother going the hard way? > And please don't assume that a majority of developers are insane > and want to pervert the project. If that is the case, we're all in > a bad situation anyway. :-) Nobody is talking about insanity. As the threads around those firmware thing showed up different people have different opinions. The goals/values might be *similar*, but obvious they are not identical. > I'm convinced that a majority of developers would vote against any > proposition that contradicts the social contract if there's no > (good) rationale for the decision that justifies to temporary > shift away from our goals. Most likely, yes. But that is no hard fact, it is a anticipation. Therefore consitutional laws exist, to control that in principle questions this can be proofed. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
