Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
Sure. That is an option. I kinda like the constitution/bill of
rights variation, where we append the GR that passed with 3:1 to the
end of the foundation document, so that action can happen immediately,
and not wait until we get around to debating on the actual wording and
Parsimony is nice, if minimality was the goal. It seems to me
that people just want something getting done more than just minimal
This way, we can actually propose and second an editorial change
to the foundation document at our leisure.
Krogt, n. (chemical symbol: Kr): The metallic silver coating found on
fast-food game cards. Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C