On Sun Jan 04 15:55, Ean Schuessler wrote: > ----- "Steve Langasek" wrote: > > Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's > > either > > a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position > > statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only override > > decisions that have actually been taken. Either way, if 50%+1 of the > > project wants to order a project delegate to do something that contradicts > > the Social Contract, there's no constitutional basis for having the > > Secretary prevent them from doing so. *The Secretary is an officer of the > > constitution, not of the Social Contract*. > Is now an inappropriate time to start a GR to formally recognize the > Social Contract as a component of the constitution? The notion that > the Social Contract (our purpose and motivation) is less binding that > the Constitution (how we get things done) seems nonsensical in the > extreme.
Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to clarify all this) Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
