On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 05:47:00PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Mon Jan 12 18:38, Robert Millan wrote: > > Agreed. Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority > > requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general, > > such requirements are not politicaly sustainable. And in practice they > > don't exist anymore, anyway. I think this would be a good time to propose > > that they are removed from the Constitution. > > Immediately after Lenny is released is a better time, and when I'm > intending to propose vote(s) to clarify a bunch of this stuff. > > Now is not the time and is only going to hurt your chances at getting > people to agree with you later. > > If the DPL wants to release a statement to explain this all he is > welcome (and encouraged) to do so, I don't think we need a GR though. > This is one of the DPL's main functions and we did elect him to perform > that function...
So far he hasn't. Do you have reasons to believe he will? By reading the vote result announcement, it gives me the impression that he endorses it. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
