On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:55:43PM -0600, 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. I think you misunderstand. I'm bound by the Social Contract because I've *agreed* to uphold it in my Debian work. That makes it more binding, not less; developers don't have to agree to uphold the constitution a a condition of becoming DDs. Trying to prevent 50%+1 of the project from willfully ignoring their promise by writing provisions into the constitution is totally missing the point. Either the people involved are upholding the SC according to *their* understanding of it, in which case no one individual should have the authority to decide for Debian that they're wrong; or they don't care about keeping their promises, so trying to get it written into the constitution is futile. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
