Re: Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal
- To: Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal
- From: John Goerzen <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:18:47 -0500
- Message-id: <200007192318.SAA05870@erwin.complete.org>
- References: <39654892.FEA31FB7@wcom.com> <20000708055720.A21919@taz.net.au> <3966473B.EFD4F55A@wcom.com> <20000708134900.A30241@taz.net.au> <20000708195317.A15702@azure.humbug.org.au> <20000708214721.B30241@taz.net.au> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20000710075658.A23958@polya> <20000713112430.O6342@taz.net.au> <email@example.com> <20000719030254.O30031@deadbeast.net>
I hereby second this excellent amendment.
Date: 19 Jul 2000 18:18:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: Branden Robinson's message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:02:54 -0500"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> 4.1. Powers
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
> 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
> agree with a 2:1 majority.
> - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
> + 5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
> + statements.
> These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
> relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
> policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> software must meet.
> They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
> 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
> property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
> Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite
> ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
> wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to
> the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents.
> Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues
> such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that
> should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should
> be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable
> developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the
> Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the
> issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their
> G. Branden Robinson |
> Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws
> email@example.com | will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?.
> http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <email@example.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----