Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 01:12:27PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea.
> Do you want to draft that?
If one of the other options gets enough seconds to become a formal GR
proposal, I would consider drafting a suitable amendment. I'm not going to
spend the time on it when there isn't yet a GR on the table.
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/