[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:32:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Option 1 - No Supermajority

>> We do not believe that we should require anything more than a simple
>> majority for any changes to the constitution or foundation documents.

>>    - replace Constitution 4.1 point 2 with "Amend this constitution"
>>    - in Constitution 4.1 point 5, point 3, remove "A Foundation Document
>>       requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. "

>> This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority.

> I would be very surprised if this option would get enough seconds if you  
> would propose it.

Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
- I don't think anyone has ever disputed the meaning of this requirement,
and it's been there since well before the Foundation Documents supermajority
requirement was instituted.  But I would strongly consider seconding (as one
option among many) a proposal to remove the 3:1 supermajority requirement
for amending Foundation Documents, because I think the most recent fiasco
has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the
first place.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: