Re: Non-free Proposal
At 09:42 AM 9/25/00 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Darren O. Benham" <gecko@benham.net> writes:
> > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or
> > the Important Documents (constitution) quorum.
>
> This seems inconsistent. The quorum is specified by the
> Constitution. Why, therefore, should the acceptance or rejection of a
> mere GR amendment, which has yet had no actual force let alone one of
> modifying the Constitution, have the effect of modifying voting
> procedures? The Constitution lays out specific rules for voting. It
> does not specify in any way that the result of a vote on a GR
> amendment can act as an exception to voting procedure.
>
> Additionally, why should the question of the quorum
> required for a vote be considered the presumed result from voting on a
> different amdendment? It is possible that people might be in favor of
> requiring the Important Documents quorum but against aj's amendment.
My understanding of Darren's argument is that the original proposal
(removal of non-free) would modify the Social Contract, which is
considered to be "constitutional" in nature (and thus requires the 3-1
majority to be modified). However, if aj's amendment were approved,
the proposal would no longer amend the Social Contract and would be
considered a normal general resolution subject to the GR rules.
This is exactly as I view it. I considered Darren's reply to settle the
three questions I formally asked him in
http://lists.debian.org/devian-vote-0006/msg00080.html.
In summary, those questions were:
1. What is the current parliamentary status of the proposal by John
Goetzen and the amendment by Anthony Townes?
2. What Constitutional authority, if any, is there for amending the Social
Contract? What level of majority or supermajority is needed to enact an
amendment to the Debian Social Contract?
3. If the original proposal requires a supermajority and the amendment
(which does not amend the DSC) requires only a majority, how will the vote
counting and determination of the results of the ballots be done?
His most recent reply answered 2 and 3, as well as settled 1.
While it did not address the Constitutional authority question (and in fact
stated that the Constitution was mute on the issue), he stated that the SC
should enjoy at least as much protection as the Constitution itself, and
thus requires a supermajority to modify.
As such, the third question (what proceedure) was also stated: Vote to
amend the proposal first, then vote on the (possibly amended)
proposal. That way, the necessary for the main proposal is clear at the
time of the vote on the proposal.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence
Titles/affiliations at http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/info.html
Office: 662-915-5949 Email: cnlawren@olemiss.edu / lawrencc@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: