On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > If my memory serves me correctly, Branden I decide that our > proposals should be on the same ballot; though there does remain some > difference in them. We think that there should be three options of > the ballot: (ordering of A and B was done by a coin toss) [snip] That's not precisely what I recall us agreeing to. I recall us agreeing to a ballot that, I suppose, could take a form like this: [ ] YES to Foundational Documents amendment [ ] NO to Foundational Documents amendment [ ] YES to "modify and withdraw" amendment [ ] NO to "modify and withdraw" amendment > For the record, I want to state that I do not consider my > proposal (a) to be a ``sperset'' or ``subset'' of branden's; That's fine; but the fact remains that text of my amendment is included in yours. All I wanted was for people to be able to vote on the issues as separate changes, not necessarily disjunct in time. I recall us talking at ALS about the danger of there being a "window" wherein the Foundational Documents amendment, if passed, would not be in force because my "modify and withdraw" amendment had been passed beforehand. If we structure the ballot as I propose, or equivalently, there will be no such accidental window. [Manoj] > + 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. > + 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as > + "Foundation Documents". These documents are those > + that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project, > + they tend to define what the project is, and lay the > + foundations of its structure. The developers may > + modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1 > + majority. > > - - -- + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists > + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the > + documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the > + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents > + that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed > + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. [me] > - - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. > + 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. As you can see, both proposals amend only the first sentence of section 5, and they amend it in exactly the same way (whitespace aside). This is why I suggested that we have, on the same ballot, the following two choices: * amend Constitution to change language of section 5 * amend Constitution to add sections 5.1 and 5.2 These are, of course, nonexclusive options; a person may vote for either, both, or neither. This is what I recall us agreeing to; does this satisfactorily match your recollection? -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a branden@debian.org | null word. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpo5lYdTvWon.pgp
Description: PGP signature