Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
- To: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
- Cc: debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
- From: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:37:30 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 43EAD51A.3030404@hogyros.de>
- In-reply-to: <20060209051838.GA14878@localhost.localdomain>
- References: <86lkxc33g0.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch> <200601191933.08621.chrsmrtn@debian.org> <20060120013926.GK30495@archimedes.ucr.edu> <200601192111.12920.chrsmrtn@debian.org> <20060208082136.GA18038@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com> <d0461dbe0602080850n1c7b4b4eo99f8bde5216f76d9@mail.gmail.com> <20060209030532.GB28269@hoiho.nz.lemon-computing.com> <87d5hxyyki.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20060209040539.GA14545@localhost.localdomain> <877j85yvpc.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20060209051838.GA14878@localhost.localdomain>
Hi,
Anthony Towns schrieb:
> If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement,
> does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the
> constitution, personally. As it happens, it says nothing about implicit
> changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord
> with them.
Then it's clearly time for editorial changes to the constitution.
Simon (ducking&running)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Reply to: