Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change
>> and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.
> Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the
> opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it
> is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may
> want to more easily change it.
> Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we
> don't have ambiguities later on.
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social
contract, and can't be treated differently.
The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.
waiting for the fiend
The trouble with the average family budget is that at the end of the
money there's too much month left.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C