On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 08:19:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Graham Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040524 20:10]: > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Debian Project Secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040523 23:55]: > > > > I do not think we can over ride the constitution, and other > > > > foundation documents, with a simple position statement; so I would > > > > not think a simple position statement can trump the SC. > > > > > > I think we can override it with a position statement that has the same > > > requirements as a change of the fundation document, i.e. this position > > > statement would require a 3:1-majority. > > > > What is the constitutional basis for you thinking this? > > If the developers could change this fundation document by the very > same way, and they explicitly only do an override for a specific > situation instead of putting more text into this fundation document, > why shouldn't this be allowed?
I agree that this should be allowed; however, I don't see in the constitution where this is allowed. The closest thing that I think we can do is to amend the social contract to allow us to not live up to it completely (option C) or add a new document that on the same level as the social contract (option E). -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
