On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:32:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Option 1 - No Supermajority
We do not believe that we should require anything more than a simple
majority for any changes to the constitution or foundation documents.
- replace Constitution 4.1 point 2 with Amend this constitution
On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
- I don't think anyone has ever disputed the meaning of this requirement,
and it's been there since
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the
terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.
I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
examlpes. I'm maybe not using
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict
On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
document is the previous option.
What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
that
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 01:12:27PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
- I don't think anyone has ever
6 matches
Mail list logo
