Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:14:55PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 05:54:13AM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> > It is in the basics of constitutional law. We cannot explicitly decide
> > not to enforce the text of a foundation document, making an exception to
> > its application, without reaching the quorum that would be necessary to
> > excluding that text entirely and forever.
> Enforcement of the foundation documents is not defined in the constitution,
> so no, this is not a question of constitutional law.
Avoiding getting too technical about it, it is still illogical. You
cannot produce the same effects of an amendment, even though
temporarily, bypassing the requirements to an amendment. Creating an
exception by means of General Resolution is equivalent to adding a
little line to the document stating that "this does not apply to the
Lenny release", except for the fact that we leave it in another official
document for convenience reasons.
Getting a bit more technical, though, but shortly, it does not need to
be in one single holy document with "C O N S T I T U T I O N" spelled on
the header to be constitutional (as in constitutional level).
> I'm not sure if you're being deliberately ironic here, or if you're just
> somehow unfamiliar with the past 7 years of US history?
Not ironic at all, I do not believe it to be useful at this point on
debian-vote :) And I would have to admit a little lack of interest in
following the past 7 years of US political history, since I was 11 by
the time this timeframe started and had not seriously considered going
to Law school either. The way you mention it, however, does not make it
sound like a role model (just inferring!).
Guilherme de S. Pastore