Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 06:14:53PM -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> On 19 July, Manoj proposed a constitutional amendment requiring
> a super-majority vote to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00061.html
>
> On the same date Branden proposed an amendment to Manoj's
> proposal that made it clear that a super-majority vote is not required
> to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00052.html
>
> Both proposals received seconds, but I did not count the number
> of seconds received.
IMO Branden's ammendment is a no-op, and I don't much like the wording
used in Manoj's proposal. The reasoning is sound though and barring a
better idea about wording, I'd vote for it.
> A vote on these two proposals before the vote on removing
> non-free would go a long way towards clearing the air.
Which is exactly why I'm so completely pissed off by this. The way to
real resolution by the book is so blatantly obvious that a blind man could
see it across a dark room (pun not intended, for those who know me..) And
yet, we have decisions by fiat which go against the grain of the
established constitution without even consideration that maybe we should
be voting on amending the constitution rather arguing over whether or not
the secretary has the power to effectively change the constitution without
a vote.
But then of course, some people on this list just don't think little
things like following the guidelines we've set for ourselves is important.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
<Knghtbrd> hardcopy is for wussies
<Topher> computer program listings....next, on HardCopy
Reply to: