I hereby second this excellent amendment. Date: 19 Jul 2000 18:18:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: Branden Robinson's message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:02:54 -0500" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lines: 60 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ====================================================================== > 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election > > 4.1. Powers > > Together, the Developers may: > 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. > 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. > 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they > agree with a 2:1 majority. > - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. > + 5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and > + statements. > These include documents describing the goals of the project, its > relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian > software must meet. > They may also include position statements about issues of the day. > 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about > property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See > s.9.1.) > ====================================================================== > Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite > ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two > wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to > the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. > Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues > such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that > should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should > be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable > developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the > Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the > issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their > amendability. > ====================================================================== > > -- > G. Branden Robinson | > Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?. > http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | - -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com #include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/> iD8DBQE5djcN3PeFtIodmh8RAs1jAJ48ubeMLdT7vGAAUQm8eQ0rYsLevQCgnXQD +wRNouGDEtFLna9krKXvbbA= =3Rov -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
