On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining > whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that > that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.
This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1". I agree with Thomas on the general case. Going up to a nearby thread: > If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a > recission or modification of a Foundation Document. The text of the > DFSG shall remain intact just as is. The main Debian archive may now > include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute, > whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously > saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote? If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion". -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
