[ogb-discuss] Re-bootstrapping contributors

[Casper.Dik at sun.com]

>On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:45:55AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should stop being an arrogant prick about your interpretations
>> of the constitution and simply ask what it means.  I am still on this
>
>I'm not going to replay the Protestant Reformation on a governance
>mailing list.  The Constititon is written in plain English; we don't
>need priests to interpret it for us.  If you intended this section to
>mean that the alternative to wholesale approval is mass resignation,
>why isn't that what's written?  I don't doubt your word - I'm sure you
>really meant the Constitution to be a contract and this approval to
>close it.  But that's not what you wrote, and the voters had only the
>document, not the notes you kept in your mental margins.


The plain english is clear enough to me; even though it is
legalese. (And plain english i snot legalese, nor vice versa but
still).

It says that our first order of business is to approve; so we
have no choice in the matter.  TO not approve causes a failed bootstrap; it
does not require us to resign; but it makes the election null and void.

Casper