Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: on-freearchive removal)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 01:49:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> [Major Snippage]
>>
>
> Perhaps this concept could be generalised to mention 'Foundational
> Documents' or similar? The extra generality may just be a waste of
> legalese, but these could include the social contract, the DFSG and
> the constitution, and a new document could be voted into this class at
> the same majority.
I am in agreement here.
If we ammend the Constitution, we should avoid specifically naming
individual documents. If we name specific documents, we disallow the
future issuance of additional "Foundational Documents". Or, at least
we force ourselves to ammend the Constitution again to afford the
new document(s) the same protections....
Cheers!
____________________________________________________________________
/ Clay Crouch, Shamless Bum ;^> | <http://danno.tzo.com/~danno> \
| Linux Administration/Consulting | <danno@danno.tzo.com> |
| Debian Package Maintainer | <danno@debian.org> |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| "Away put your weapon; I mean you no harm." -- Master Yoda |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1024D/7D2AD631: 2319 2356 FEDF 4631 63F3 762A E443 1C2A 7D2A D631 |
\____________________________________________________________________/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE5cwl95EMcKn0q1jERAp18AJsFZunuUm4EfIcBXI2MF6WE9YGjGACgmgrS
HAquyxSenwDPOvzmcA1rbNA=
=dSrn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: