Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com> writes:
>
> Buddha> How about placing the DSC/DFSG in Rule 2, rather than in Rule 5.2?
>
> Buddha> For a hand-diff, how about something like:
>
> Buddha> ----------
> Buddha> 4.1. Powers
>
> Buddha> Together, the Developers may:
> Buddha> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> Buddha> - 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
> Buddha> + 2. Amend the Foundation Documents of the Debian Project, provided
> Buddha> + they agree with a 3:1 majority
> Buddha> + 2.1 The Foundation Documents are the Debian Social Contract, the
> Buddha> + Debian Free Software Guidelines, and this document, the
> Buddha> + Debian Constitution.
>
> This does not clarify that the foundation documents can be
> issued, modified, or withdrawn, and they need the same super majority
> to do so.
In order to issue or withdraw a Foundation Document, clause 2.1 would
have to be modified. Since that is a change to the Debian
Constitution, that would require a 3:1 majority.
I see no reason why these two closely tied issues couldn't be part of
the same proposals:
------Example Follows, not a serious proposal----------------
I propose
that the Debian Social Contract be withdrawn as no longer
applicable to the goals and ideals of the current set of Debian
Developers; and
that the Debian Constitution be amended, removing the mention of the
Debian Social Contract from Section 4.1.2.1.
This proposal is covered by Section 4.1.2 of the Debian Constitution,
and requires a 3:1 supermajority to pass
------Example Precedes, not a serious proposal-----------------
Since even under your proposal, issuing or withdrawing a Foundation
Document would require a similar a similar amendment to the Debian
Constitution, I don't see it as an issue.
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@14850.com
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: