Re: Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>]

I hereby second this excellent amendment.

Date: 19 Jul 2000 18:18:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: Branden Robinson's message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:02:54 -0500"
Message-ID: <87snt5iu94.fsf@complete.org>
Lines: 60
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

> ======================================================================
>  4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> 
>    4.1. Powers
> 
>     Together, the Developers may:
>      1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
>      2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>      3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
>      4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
>         agree with a 2:1 majority.
> -    5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> +    5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
> +       statements.
>         These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
>         relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
>         policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
>         software must meet.
>         They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
>      6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
>         property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
>         s.9.1.)
> ======================================================================
>  Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite
>  ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
>  wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to
>  the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents.
>  Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues
>  such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that
>  should require unusual amendment procedures.  I think such issues should
>  be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable
>  developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the
>  Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the
>  issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their
>  amendability.
> ======================================================================
> 
> -- 
> G. Branden Robinson             |
> Debian GNU/Linux                |    If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws
> branden@debian.org              |    will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?.
> http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |

- -- 
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>                       www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.    www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                     <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE5djcN3PeFtIodmh8RAs1jAJ48ubeMLdT7vGAAUQm8eQ0rYsLevQCgnXQD
+wRNouGDEtFLna9krKXvbbA=
=3Rov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----