Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5

[Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com>]

At 08:35 AM 11/9/00 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Peter" == Peter Makholm <peter@makholm.net> writes:
>
>  >> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>  >>
>  >> 4.1. Powers
>  >>
>  >> Together, the Developers may:
>
>  >> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>
>  >> +   5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
>  >> +       of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
>  >> +       documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the
>  >> +       Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
>  >> +       that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed
>  >> +       by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>
>  Peter> Is it wise to let amendments to the constitution be regulated by two
>  Peter> rules? Why not drop the first rule to improve maintainability.
>
>         Where do you see two rules to regulate constitutional
>  amendments? One rules is for the constitution, the other rule is on
>  how to amend a totally separate list of Foundation documents.

Rule 2 says that developers can change the Debian Constitution with a 3:1 
majority.

Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain "Foundation 
Documents" with a 3:1 majority.  The first "Foundation Document" listed is 
is the Debian Constitution.

Both rules cover modifying the Debian Constitution.  Rule 2 under the 
context of the Debian Constitution; Proposed Rule 5.2 under the context of 
Foundation documents.



>         manoj