Seconded. In article <[🔎] 87wviv3sdn.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com>, at 09 Jul 2000 16:28:52 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote: > Indeed, now that it appears to be a matter of interpretation, > with two wildly different interpretations, I would not be averse to > clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non > technical documents; indeed, I would be in favout of specifyihng the > DFSG and the Social contract as special case documents in the > constitution itself. > > 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). > > manoj
Attachment:
pgpxsivi60dr5.pgp
Description: PGP signature