Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> >> > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1 >> > supermajority requirement. >> >> The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the >> 3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases. > > Not necessarily. Acording to the Constitution "A Foundation Document > is a document or statement regarded as critical to the Project's > mission and purposes." This seems to imply that the Foundation > Documents take precedence over any "non-foundational" resolution.
>> For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the >> DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal >> the DFSG. > > In this case the Foundation Documents effectively invalidate any part > of the resolution that contradicts with them. I agree. But this is opposed to what Steve Langasek was advancing, as I understood it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
