Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: on-freearchive removal)
On 17-Jul-00, 12:37 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> This list may be provided separately from the constitution;
> and a constitutional amendment may not be needed to amend the list
> (though changes to the list would still require convincing 3/4 of the
> developers).
>
> Comments?
I agree that the DFSG and SC are core documents for the Debian project,
and should require the same level of agreement (3:1) for change or
addition as the constitution. I'm not sure we need another document to
list them, though. I'm also not very comfortable with melding it into
the flow of text about other docs we might issue. How about something
like this, after the other text currently in 5.:
+ 5.1 Two of these documents are considered fundamental to the purposes
+ of of the Debian project, and may only be modified if the developers
+ agree with a 3:1 majority. The two documents are the Debian Free
+ Software Guidelines (DFSG) and the Debian Social Contract (SC).
There's no need to mention the constitution, as it already requires a
3:1 majority to modify. This also means that the list of fundamental
documents requires a 3:1, which I think is a good idea. Seperating to
a different clause will make future ammendments to the list of covered
documents a little cleaner, and makes their special status more clear.
(I'm not purposing this as a formal ammendment to Manoj's proposal, as
it is just another way of saying the same thing. I think it's clearer,
but I'll leave to him and others to decide if they agree.)
Steve
Reply to: