I have some editorial amendments to propose. Unlike amendment BR1,
these do *not* run counter to the proposer's intentions as I understand
them.
> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>
> 4.1. Powers
>
> Together, the Developers may:
> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
In my opinion, either this clause should go, or the identification of
the Debian Constitution as a "Foundation Document" should go. It is
redundant and potentially confusing to express the critera for amending
the Constitution in two different clauses.
I think it would be better have three subclauses of clause 5,
describing:
1. what a Foundation Document is
2. a list of Foundation Documents
3. what the requirements are for issue, withdrawing, or superseding a
Foundation Document
> + 5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements.
I suggest:
+ 5. Issue, withdraw, and supersede 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.
In my opinion, the above definition of "Foundation Document" is too
rambling.
+ 5.1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
> + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
> + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
> + documents known as the Debian 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.
I do not understand why we need to describe an ephemeral fact about what
the Foundation Documents once were ("Initially").
Also, with the list of Foundation Documents encapsulated into the text
of the constitution, it is redundant to explain that a consitutional
amendment is necessary to amend the text of the constitution, and to
reiterate the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment.
+ 5.2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian
+ Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
(I have omitted the constitution itself as 4.1.2 already handles
its amendment requirements.)
+ 5.3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
+ supercession.
I should think that new Foundation Documents can be issued, and existing
ones withdrawn, by amending the text of 4.1.5.2 per 4.1.2.
If you want to make that explicit, please add:
- supercession.
+ supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
Thanks for your consideration.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Fair use is irrelevant and
Debian GNU/Linux | improper.
branden@debian.org | -- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Frewing, explaining the DMCA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature