Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:05:40PM +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC they
> will need to propose an amendmend.
> As proposed this clarifies my and other people's view of what our
> foundation documents mean. You are welcome to add a
> note/comment/explanation to the SC, but this doesn't modify it.
the problem is that we were told that voting for your amendment makes it
necessary to organise a vote to change the DFSG or the SC… I really understand
your position, but apparently it is not me or you who decides.
Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ?
- What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the
Secretary does ?
- What if a second vote is organised, but not option gets a 3:1 majority ?
- What if no second vote is organised ?
- What if Peter's option is voted with less than a 3:1 majority ?
Have a nice day,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan