Foundational Document Protection (was Re: Constit...uti [was Re: CFV...])
Clay Crouch wrote:
>
> -----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.
So what you must have here is a constitutional appendix listing the
protected foundational documents, named in the Constitution, protected
the same way as the DC. You'd have to issue the same kind of proposal,
call for votes the same way, suffer the same kind of flamewar,
and get the same kind of super-majority. What does that get you?
Not having to amend the DC? What, really, would be the difference?
> 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....
But if the FDs have constitutional-level protection, and the list of
them has the same, what's the difference?
This makes me think that going the other way may be better: incorporate
the DFSG and the SC into the DC. Think about it: if "constitution"
means "[declaration of] make-up, identity, state-of-being" as well
as "rules-for-order, modus operandi", then let the DC state, fully,
who, why & how we are. If the FDs are part & parcel of the identity,
the raison d'etre, and the MO, of Debian, let their language be
included in the DC.
For analogy, the constitutions of several states (here I mean sovereign
states, not merely political subdivisions) have definitions of the
boundaries of those respective states. The constitution of Haiti
comes first to mind (because it lists an island, La Navasse, that
is claimed and occupied by the United States of America, see
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/legal.html )
--
Bolan.Meek@wcom.com 972-729-5387
bolan@koyote.com (home phone on request)
http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan
RE: xmailtool http://www.koyote.com/users/bolan/xmailtool/index.html
I am the "ILOVEGNU" signature virus. Just copy me to your signature.
This email was infected under the terms of the GNU General Public
License.
Reply to: