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

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
> >> Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> >> > This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
> >> 
> >> The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
> >> amended.
> >
> > As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Secretary's job is to interpret
> > the constitution, not the SC.  I'm not convinced that the secretary can
> > mandate that a GR changes the SC.
>         I think the only way to reconcile the constitution with the GR
>  is to have a 3:1 vote, and subsequently to modify the foundation
>  document.  We can't just supersede a foundation document otherwise.

The foundation documents are like the law. This GR is like a "decree of
the government" that tells us how the law will be applied.

If the GR doesn't explicitely state that it modifies a foundation
document, then it doesn't. If you believe that it does implicitely, then
you vote against it (or propose an amendment where you explicitely modify
the document).

But you don't get to decide if the resolution modifies the foundation
document or not. At best, you add additionnal notes near the foundation
documents for people looking for "exegisis".

But your current stance is severly hurting our capacity to govern our
project and I find it unacceptable (and it's a pity but this problem is
not new, we already had this discussion for other votes).

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: