[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:13:05 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu> said: 

> On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> 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.

> Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas
> expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical
> document that should not need a supermajority to change.

	The web page for the vote has been up on www.d.o for 13
 days. We are 13 days into a 2 week discussion period. Shouldn't this
 have been brought up before now?

> Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like
> this?

	I did ask proposers (well, proposer) for a better
 rationale. And it is meant to be a rationale -- not a full blown
 argument for the proposal. This mailing list is the proper forum for
 presenting arguments for and against the proposals, and indeed, the
 archives list voluminous debates on these issues in days past.

	I am not sure the resulting constitution should be burdened
 with an extended set of arguments for an amendment that has passed
 and is now a part of the constitution -- and that is the intent of
 the rationale; to provide a short footnote in the constitution; not
 a means for voters to make their decision. 

Once is happenstance, Twice is coincidence, Three times is enemy
action. Auric Goldfinger
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: