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" >> - in Constitution 4.1 point 5, point 3, remove "A Foundation Document >> requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. " >> This option amends the constitution and hence requires a 3:1 majority. > I would be very surprised if this option would get enough seconds if you > would propose it. 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 well before the Foundation Documents supermajority requirement was instituted. But I would strongly consider seconding (as one option among many) a proposal to remove the 3:1 supermajority requirement for amending Foundation Documents, because I think the most recent fiasco has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the first place. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
