On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:10:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new stuff without any > hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or
I'd say that the constitution itself is some kind of precedent. The idea is that these documents are at least as important to what Debian is as the constitution and so changing them should be at least as hard as changing the constitution. The constitution is basically just a set of rules for making decisions - things like the DFSG and the Social Contract define much more clearly what we're trying to achieve than the constitution does. If you're going to point someone at a document explaining what Debian is all about I don't think the constitution is likely to be the first thing you're likely to think of. If we do decide that we consider these documents to be fundamental to defining what Debian is it seems reasonable that we should be just as cautious when modifying them as we are when modifying the constitution. > If you're so certain that the Foundational Documents portion of your > resolution will pass, then you have no reason to object to ballots for it > and my resolution to be issued simultaneously. If the Project Secretary It would be sensible to put them on the same ballot. I guess allowing people to rank your proposal, that of Manoj and no change would give enough options for everyone. I don't know how much provision there is for doing things like that in the constitution, though. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpB3j4nACU4S.pgp
Description: PGP signature