Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: Non-freearchive removal)

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 07:56:39AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >  	We could add in the better than a simple majority clause for
> >  modifying the DFSG and social contract in at the same time; which
> >  would perhaps address the concerns of a number of people.
> > 
> > 	Please consider this a trial baloon for that idea; if it seems
> >  like a good idea, perhaps we can get a constitutional amendment in
> >  that addresses the constitutionality of changing these documents (and
> >  allay the fears that some have about frivolous, or hasty, changes to
> >  core documents for the project).
> 
> I support this idea.

while i don't actually see any need to change either the social contract
or the DFSG (i think they're fine as is), i also support this idea in
the interests of clarifying an ambiguity, and also because it provides
for these documents the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.

in short, "me too".

craig

--
craig sanders