-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"BB" => Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How about this modification?
BB> 4.1. Powers
BB> Together, the Developers may:
BB> 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
BB> - 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
BB> + 2. Amend the Foundation Documents of the Debian Project, provided
BB> + they agree with a 3:1 majority
BB> + 2.1 The Foundation Documents are the Debian Social Contract, the
BB> + Debian Free Software Guidelines, and this document, the
BB> + Debian Constitution.
BB> 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
BB> 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
BB> agree with a 2:1 majority.
BB> - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
BB> + 5. Issue, modify, or withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
! statements with a 2:1 majority.
! Nontechnical policy documents include documents
! describing the goals of the project, its relationship
! with other free software entities, and position
! statements about issues of the day.
BB> 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
BB> property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
BB> s.9.1.)
I've made the following changes:
1. Added a 2:1 majority requirement to issue, modify, or
withdraw nontechnical policy documents.
Policy documents defining the relationship of the Project to
the outside world are at least as important as technical
decisions made by the Technical Committee, which require a
2:1 majority to override.
2. Rewritten the definition of nontechnical policy documents to
make it more concise and remove the reference to ``the free
software license terms that Debian software must meet'', as
those terms are defined by the DFSG, a Foundation Document.
If I'm misreading the definition of ``Debian software'',
then we need to define that term somewhere. I'm assuming
that ``Debian software'' means ``software that is distributed
as part of the Debian GNU/Linux (or GNU/Herd)
distribution''.
3. Removed the specific, but redundant, exemption for the
Foundation Documents. By definition, Foundation Documents
are covered by Section 4.2.2, and not Section 4.2.5.
CMC
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space,
a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and GNU Privacy Guard
<http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE6Cz6AzrFKeh3cmQ0RArwNAJ0QVHU/nQYplXAVa04nSHNRtf4tjwCfS818
xCD0c1Tjs7J9Jg/PmdzZXCE=
=88EL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
