On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Raul D. Miller wrote:
> > I think it should, in fact. HOWEVER, there is no constitutional provision
> > AT THIS TIME for it. Fact is, gecko has NO AUTHORITY to single-handedly
> > alter the constitution in practice like this.
>
> Fact is?
>
> Fact is
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:44:07PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think it should, in fact. HOWEVER, there is no constitutional provision
> AT THIS TIME for it. Fact is, gecko has NO AUTHORITY to single-handedly
> alter the constitution in practice like this.
Fact is?
Fact is -- there was qu
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:34:38PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
> > constitution 7.1 point 3: "The Secretary adjudicates any disputes
> > about interpretation of the constitution.".
>
> And I for one am a supported of
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
> problem suggested.
>
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitutio
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> SUMMARY
> ---
>
> The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
> for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
> incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions. Below you will
>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:44:07PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I think it should, in fact. HOWEVER, there is no constitutional provision
> AT THIS TIME for it. Fact is, gecko has NO AUTHORITY to single-handedly
> alter the constitution in practice like this.
Fact is?
Fact is -- there was q
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:34:38PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
> > constitution 7.1 point 3: "The Secretary adjudicates any disputes
> > about interpretation of the constitution.".
>
> And I for one am a supported of
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:31:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> As far as I can tell though there weren't any actual solutions to the
> problem suggested.
>
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constituti
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
> for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
> incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions.
Ok, now that people have pointed out th
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> SUMMARY
> ---
>
> The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
> for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
> incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions. Below you will
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
> constitution 7.1 point 3: "The Secretary adjudicates any disputes
> about interpretation of the constitution.".
And I for one am a supported of John's resolution *and* I think that
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
> for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
> incorrect premises and draw incorrect conclusions.
Ok, now that people have pointed out t
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
> constitution 7.1 point 3: "The Secretary adjudicates any disputes
> about interpretation of the constitution.".
And I for one am a supported of John's resolution *and* I think that
At 02:28 PM 9/27/00 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> should
I wrote:
> * Our constitution is incomplete because there is not a constitutional
> way to determine whether something is constitutional or not. We would need
> to amend it and create a "constitutional court of justice".
Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
constit
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> should require a supermajority
> (c) A group of de
At 02:28 PM 9/27/00 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The problem is:
> >
> > (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> > legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> > (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> >
I wrote:
> * Our constitution is incomplete because there is not a constitutional
> way to determine whether something is constitutional or not. We would need
> to amend it and create a "constitutional court of justice".
Ooops! I have just been pointed out that this is not true, because of
consti
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> should require a supermajority
> (c) A group of d
19 matches
Mail list logo
