Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
* Graham Wilson (email@example.com) [040524 20:10]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Debian Project Secretary (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040523 23:55]:
> > > I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other
> > > foundation documents, with a simple position statement; so I would
> > > not think a simple position statement can trump the SC.
> > I think we can override it with a position statement that has the same
> > requirements as a change of the fundation document, i.e. this position
> > statement would require a 3:1-majority.
> What is the constitutional basis for you thinking this?
If the developers could change this fundation document by the very
same way, and they explicitly only do an override for a specific
situation instead of putting more text into this fundation document,
why shouldn't this be allowed? (Or perhaps view it just as a very
implicit change to the fundation document. Our constitution does not
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C