Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:03:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> I think the only way to reconcile the constitution with the GR
> >> is to have a 3:1 vote, and subsequently to modify the foundation
> >> document. We can't just supersede a foundation document otherwise.
> > The parsimonious approach here would be for the secretary to state that a
> > given resolution is non-binding unless it includes a patch to the DFSG and
> > passes with a 3:1 majority, instead of unilaterally deciding to rewrite the
> > DFSG with text that has not been proposed and seconded as part of a
> > resolution.
> Sure. That is an option. I kinda like the constitution/bill of
> rights variation, where we append the GR that passed with 3:1 to the
> end of the foundation document, so that action can happen immediately,
> and not wait until we get around to debating on the actual wording and
In the US, this happens when something has been *proposed* as a
Constitutional amendment, which has not happened here.
> Parsimony is nice, if minimality was the goal. It seems to me
> that people just want something getting done more than just minimal
Sure, bypassing democratic processes is frequently the more expedient
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/