On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates > Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and > includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.
Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to more easily change it. Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we don't have ambiguities later on. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
