On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1 > > supermajority requirement. > > The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the > 3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases.
Not necessarily. Acording to the Constitution "A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as critical to the Project's mission and purposes." This seems to imply that the Foundation Documents take precedence over any "non-foundational" resolution. > For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the > DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal > the DFSG. In this case the Foundation Documents effectively invalidate any part of the resolution that contradicts with them. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]