Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Personally, I agree that the constitution does not explicitly provide > for a 3:1 supermajority to modify the Social Contract. But it doesn't
Indeed, it explicitly provides the opposite: §A.6(2) > explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5) > explicitly provides for a 3:1 majority to modify the Constitution, and > it explicitly provides for the "issuing" of new non-technical > documents. I see four possible ways to interpret that: > 1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution. This is contradictory with §4.1(5). > 2. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly issuing a new Social > Contract, and thus allowed with "simple" majority. Indeed, this is the case. > 3. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly modifying the > Constitution, and thus allowed with a 3:1 supermajority There is no basis in the Constitution for this position and it is negated by §4.1(5). > 4. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly allowed via some other > clause in the Constitution no one has mentioned yet, and the voting > requirements thus determined by that clause. I see no other such clause, and nobody else has mentioned such. > It's a hard choice to make. Good arguments could be made, and were, > for 1, 2 or 3 (dunno about 4, though). Because of the ambiguity, > Branden and Manoj have both proposed amendments that would clarify the > issue -- not necessarily change it, but to remove the ambiguity. Manoj's proposal WOULD change it. > The Secretary chose 3. The one that most directly contradicts what is actually in the Constitution at that. > >2. Confusion has surrounded the ballot regarding aj's amendment. > > There has been that. I don't know how -that's- gonna be resolved. I don't know either. > >3. There has been a suggestion that because of the Secretary's > >inaction, the proposal and the amendment have expired. This places us > >in unknown territory since the Secretary already issued a ballot. > >Furthermore, it leaves us in a nasty situation whereby a single person > >can kill any resolution by ignoring it. > > My personal opinion is that the suggestion is untenable on it's face. > True, there has been considerable time with no debate on the proposal, > but a Call for Votes was made, indicating that people were ready to > vote and bring closure. The failure of a parliamentary officer to > perform his duties should not kill a valid proposal. I'm yet unsure whether it's correct or not, but it is at least a question that the Secretary must address. I agree that the Secretary's failure should not kill the proposal but I am unsure of whether the Constituion actually allows him to do so. -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com #include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
