Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think so.. It seems like the only real solution is to set this
> issue aside and fix the constitution first. This too would be precedent
> setting, but IMO it would be a better precedent than effectively modifying
> the constitution in practice but not on paper. I'd happily vote in favor
> of a constitutional amendment fixing the language so we can quite clearly
> issue AND revise non-technical documents without selective interpretation
> as well as mandating that the social contract and DFSG require a lot more
> than a simple majority to change.
On 19 July, Manoj proposed a constitutional amendment requiring
a super-majority vote to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00061.html
On the same date Branden proposed an amendment to Manoj's
proposal that made it clear that a super-majority vote is not required
to change the SC or DFSG. This proposal is at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project-0007/msg00052.html
Both proposals received seconds, but I did not count the number
of seconds received.
A vote on these two proposals before the vote on removing
non-free would go a long way towards clearing the air.
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
