Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:29:17AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 1. Your proposal allows any nontechnical document defined by 4.1.5
>    to be modified

...and withdrawn...

> 2. Manoj's proposal allows nontechnical documents to be modified;

...and withdrawn...

>    a subset of these, known as foundation documents, require a 3:1
>    majority to be modified; the others require no special majority.
>    In addition, the list of foundation documents requires a 3:1
>    majority to modify.
>
> Is this a fair summary?

Yes.  As you can see they are not "opposite" in any sense.  Both would
permit non-technical documents to be explicitly modified and withdrawn.

Manoj's further creates a class of non-technical documents that receive
special treatment.  I see no reason this can't be proposed and voted on
separately, for the reasons I provided in my rationale statment.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson             |    The basic test of freedom is perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux                |    less in what we are free to do than in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]              |    what we are free not to do.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Eric Hoffer

PGP signature