On Friday 21 July 2006 17:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:18:44 +0200, Bas Zoetekouw <firstname.lastname@example.org> said: > > I don't think it makes sense that the Debian constitution determines > > who can become a member of SPI. That is something that should be > > (and probably is) described in SPI's bylaws. > > This is true. There seems no reason to mention this in the > constitution, since an action by the SPI board can change that, and > the constitution amendment would be required to marry the > constitution with reality. > > What would the seconders feel about deleting this sentence > from the proposed draft? Yep, makes sense. Seconded as thus amended, with the editorial change proposed by vorlon as well (Message-ID: <20060721013844.GA7176@mauritius.dodds.net>) Btw, I agree with ajt that the discussion period should be kept open until SPI board election is over. There's no need to wait for a statement of SPI (you say, correctly, that they don't have any official role in this process), but giving the newly elected board a week to comment if they like would be nice. cheers -- vbi -- Single tasking: Just Say No.
Description: PGP signature