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

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:05:40PM +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC they
> will need to propose an amendmend.
> As proposed this clarifies my and other people's view of what our
> foundation documents mean.  You are welcome to add a
> note/comment/explanation to the SC, but this doesn't modify it.

Hi Peter,

the problem is that we were told that voting for your amendment makes it
necessary to organise a vote to change the DFSG or the SC… I really understand
your position, but apparently it is not me or you who decides.

Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ?

 - What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the
   Secretary does ?
 - What if a second vote is organised, but not option gets a 3:1 majority ?
 - What if no second vote is organised ?
 - What if Peter's option is voted with less than a 3:1 majority ?

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: