Manoj,
I would like to add my approval to these editorial comments. The idea
of superseding previous documents sits far better with me than the idea
of modification. The preservation of a historical record of our
decisions is one of the ways we make our intentions clear to the world.
Please consider its changes.
Simon
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:46:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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.
>
Attachment:
pgpepH040Yp1T.pgp
Description: PGP signature