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/