* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040601 18:10]: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:39:10AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Reason: Please be specific what you want. As long as a GR doesn't say > > that it might touch a foundation document, it doesn't do.
> It might be nice if the constitution (or some foundation document) > said this. Well, at the moment we definitly need to live with the current status. In my opinion it's as this: - If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a foundation document, it's ok. - If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a foundation document, it's ok. - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore be avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable - I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.) Ok? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
