Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:00:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, I had proposed this in -project on the 19th of
> July. This addresses the same ambiguity that Brandon does in his
> proposal, but in a distincly different fashion. I would suggest that
> this should be offered as an alternative to Brandon's proposal, if it
> comes to a vote (if the rules lawyers deem that permissible). If not,
> this may stand on its own (leaving open the possibility that both,
> almost opposite, amendments may be accepted).
A possibly simpler wording would be something like the text which
follows. This does have a different meaning to Manoj's proposal in that
it does not provide for the withdrawal of Foundation Documents.
NOTE: this is *not* intended to be yet another GR to add to the
confusion, merely a suggested rewording of Manoj's proposal.
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend a Foundation Document or the list of Foundation Documents,
provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. The Foundation
Documents are the Debian Constitution (this document), the
Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
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, 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
s.9.1.)
Regards,
--
Brendan O'Dea bod@compusol.com.au
Compusol Pty. Limited (NSW, Australia) +61 2 9810 3633
Reply to: