On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:10:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new stuff without any
> hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or
I'd say that the constitution itself is some kind of precedent. The idea
is that these documents are at least as important to what Debian is as the
constitution and so changing them should be at least as hard as changing
the constitution. The constitution is basically just a set of rules for
making decisions - things like the DFSG and the Social Contract define
much more clearly what we're trying to achieve than the constitution
does. If you're going to point someone at a document explaining what
Debian is all about I don't think the constitution is likely to be the
first thing you're likely to think of.
If we do decide that we consider these documents to be fundamental to
defining what Debian is it seems reasonable that we should be just as
cautious when modifying them as we are when modifying the constitution.
> If you're so certain that the Foundational Documents portion of your
> resolution will pass, then you have no reason to object to ballots for it
> and my resolution to be issued simultaneously. If the Project Secretary
It would be sensible to put them on the same ballot. I guess allowing
people to rank your proposal, that of Manoj and no change would give
enough options for everyone. I don't know how much provision there is for
doing things like that in the constitution, though.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Attachment:
pgp2kz5T4dYPp.pgp
Description: PGP signature