At 08:35 AM 11/9/00 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
> >>
> >> 4.1. Powers
> >>
> >> Together, the Developers may:
>
> >> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>
> >> + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
> >> + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
> >> + documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the
> >> + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
> >> + that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed
> >> + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>
> Peter> Is it wise to let amendments to the constitution be regulated by two
> Peter> rules? Why not drop the first rule to improve maintainability.
>
> Where do you see two rules to regulate constitutional
> amendments? One rules is for the constitution, the other rule is on
> how to amend a totally separate list of Foundation documents.
Rule 2 says that developers can change the Debian Constitution with a 3:1
majority.
Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain "Foundation
Documents" with a 3:1 majority. The first "Foundation Document" listed is
is the Debian Constitution.
Both rules cover modifying the Debian Constitution. Rule 2 under the
context of the Debian Constitution; Proposed Rule 5.2 under the context of
Foundation documents.
> manoj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
