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

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:03:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:

> >>         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
> > resolution.

>         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
>  such.

In the US, this happens when something has been *proposed* as a
Constitutional amendment, which has not happened here.

>         Parsimony is nice, if minimality was the goal. It seems to me
>  that people just want something getting done more than just minimal
>  action.

Sure, bypassing democratic processes is frequently the more expedient

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: