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

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:29:06AM -0600, 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 parsimonious approach here would be for the secretary to state that a
given resolution is non-binding unless it includes a patch to the DFSG and
passes with a 3:1 majority, instead of unilaterally deciding to rewrite the
DFSG with text that has not been proposed and seconded as part of a

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: