Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 5.Issue 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.
> >
> > By declaring that the Social Contract modification does not meet the
> > criteria for a GR, and thus fails the §4.1(5) test, he is saying that
> > it is not a document describing the goals of the project, nor does it
> > describe its relationship with other free software entities, nor does
> > it describe nontechnical policies. Clearly all three of these
> > assertions are false. Only one need be true for the modification to
> > be legal as a GR. Any reasonable person can see that clearly the
> > Social Contract, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is in fact a document that
> > defines Debian's relationship with other free software entities and
> > describes the goals of the project! To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
>
> Indeed, the Social Contract is "a document that defines Debian's relationship
> with other free software entitites and describes the goals of the project."
> However, the above quoted section does not refer to the modification
> of existing documents or revoking existing documents, only to the issuing
> of documents.
What exactly prevents an existing document to be re-issued?
Reply to: