Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
> capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
> I think the interpretation of "supersede" that has been tendered by the
> previous secretary is sufficiently unreasonable that I'm not sure what kind
> of change would be adequate to guard against such interpretations in the
> future; and I'd rather not have us bloat the constitution with any more
> language about this than absolutely necessary.
Furthermore, in the discussions on -vote related to the introduction of
the 3:1 ratio, quite a few people were discussing the "versioning" of
the foundation documents: the rationale was that foundation documents were
important enough that we need to be able to refer unambiguously to each
specific version that we created.
Hence "superseding" clearly meant to create a new version of the document.
In fact, the term superseding has been used instead of "modify" because
it's the terminology that is used with RFC and other standards.
I have never read (in those discussions) any interpretation of
"superseding" that would match the interpretation done by Manoj.
For the record, I voted for the 3:1 ratio as well, I want political
stability in our common goal. I don't want political sclerose in
our day-to-day decisions. Even it that means that we will end up doing
mistakes some times, mistakes can be reverted.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :