Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Graham Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040524 20:10]:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Debian Project Secretary (email@example.com) [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?
I agree that this should be allowed; however, I don't see in the
constitution where this is allowed.
The closest thing that I think we can do is to amend the social contract
to allow us to not live up to it completely (option C) or add a new
document that on the same level as the social contract (option E).