At 08:35 AM 11/9/00 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>"Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>>
>> 4.1. Powers
>>
>> Together, the Developers may:
>> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
>> + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
>> + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
>> + documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the
>> + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
>> + that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed
>> + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
Peter> Is it wise to let amendments to the constitution be regulated by two
Peter> rules? Why not drop the first rule to improve maintainability.
Where do you see two rules to regulate constitutional
amendments? One rules is for the constitution, the other rule is on
how to amend a totally separate list of Foundation documents.
Rule 2 says that developers can change the Debian Constitution with a 3:1
majority.
Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain "Foundation
Documents" with a 3:1 majority. The first "Foundation Document" listed is
is the Debian Constitution.
Both rules cover modifying the Debian Constitution. Rule 2 under the
context of the Debian Constitution; Proposed Rule 5.2 under the context of
Foundation documents.
manoj
