[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document

Hi,  I do not understand some of this.  Clarification will be most

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 01:15:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>         On consultation with the other sponsors, I have decided to
>  add a sunset clause to the proposed "Transition Guide", so that the
>  specific references to Sarge are ex-purged after it is released.
> 	This new version has been proof read by David Harris, and is
>  in much better  shape than my initial offering. On their request, I
>  have removed the names for Raul MIller and Joey Hess, though I thank
>  them for helping me form my view, in the now unattributed emails.
> 	To recap, in order to handle the changes introduced in the GR
>  2004_003:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  	I propose we adopt a foundation document that tries to provide
>  guidance and explanation for the transitions required whenever a
>  change occurs in a foundation document like the social contract, and
>  also provides specific remedies to the current dilemma that we find

I think this concept itself is a good one.

>  ourself in. This GR proposal is related to the GR currently in
>  discussion for deferring of the changes made in GR 2004_003, and

Well "deferring of the changes made in GR 2004_003" is true for most
proposals but Craig's proposal is complete reversal/rescind.  If this
passes, there is no need for transition :)  Just business as usual.

(I understood "deferring" as delaying implementation.) 

>  would be on the same ballot, and is an alternative to the GR
>  currently in discussion.

I do not understand why this is an alternative to many existing
proposals and would be on the same ballot. 

These seem to be totally independent.

Unless some proposals are changed to use this infrastructure, this is
also not useful.  If we want to pass this before other newly modified
GRs, other GRs need to wait extra time.  That is not nice considering

Can we do this later? or at the same time but on a different ballot?

I am confused about situation why this is proposed this way.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: